®lf0  Ctbrarg  nf 
f  rinc0t0n  ®lj00l0gtcal  ^^mtnanj 


THE  PUBLISHED  BOOKS  OF 

REV.  WM.  DeLOSS  LOVE,  D.  D. 

ARE  AS  FOLLOWS 

'Wisconsin  in  the  War."    Published  in  1866. 

Christ  Preaching  to  Spirits  in  Prison."    Published  in  i883. 

'Future  Probation  Examined."    Published  in  1888. 

'St.     Paul    and    Woman;"    or,    Paul's    Requirement    as    to 
Woman's  Silence.     Published  in  1894. 

'Sabbath  and  Sunday."    Published  in  1896. 


SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 


.  y 

By  Rev.  Wm.  DeLoss  Love,  D.  D. 

Author  of  '''St.  Paid  and  Woman,'"  Etc, 


FLEMING  H.  REVELL  COMPANY 

CHICAGO  NEW  YORK  TORONTO 

Piiblishets  of  Evangelical  Literature 


COPYRIGHTED  1896,  BY   FLEMING   H.  REVELL   CO. 


DEDICATION 


This  book,  entitled 

SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Is  hereby  respectfully  and  afifectionately  dedicated  to  the 
memory  of 

George  Edward  Dexter 

My  college  class  mate  of  more  than  fifty  years  ago,  who  lived 
past  our  semi-centennial,  which  occurred  in  June,  1893,  and 
died  at  his  home,  Charles  City,  Iowa,  August  20,  1894.  It  was 
contemplated  to  have  Mr.  Dexter  prepare  a  legal  department 
to  this  volume,  giving  an  outline  of  the  Sabbatic  laws  in  the 
several  half  hundred  States  of  the  Union,  and  a  statement 
of  the  principles  which  justify  the  enforcement  of  the  civil 
law  to  sustain  the  Sabbath  in  a  free  government.  But  his 
death  came  too  soon  for  the  completion  of  my  plan.  One 
ever  with  him  after  their  union  speaks  of  his  strong  love  for 
the  Sabbath,  and  says  that  he  read  only  the  best  of  books 
and  papers  on  that  day,  and  always  thanked  God  in  family 
worship  for  the  Lord's  Day,  at  its  close.  Mr.  Dexter  was  an 
Elder  in  the  Presby  terian  Church.  He  became  a  practitioner 
at  law  in  three  different  states.  New  York,  Wisconsin  and 
Minnesota.  He  acquired  a  large  property,  and,  in  his  will, 
remembered  his  Alma  Mater,  Hamilton  College.  With  a 
Christian  character  and  useful  living  and  prosperity  in 
business  and  length  of  days -life  was  with  him  a  noble  suc- 
cess.    Evergreen  and  fruitful  of  good  be  his  memory. 


PREFACE. 

Every  book,  by  its  inherent  value,  should  prove 
its  right  to  have  an  existence.  It  is  often  well  to 
preface  a  book  with  a  statement  or  testimonies  bear- 
ing on  its  value.  These  should  be  of  the  nature 
of  proofs,  not  merely  of  opinions.  The  first  ten 
chapters  of  the  following  work  were  first  published 
in  seven  articles  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  between 
Oct.  1879  and  July  1881.  But  all  of  that  part  has 
been  revised,  abridged  and  simplified  in  some 
respects  and  brought  to  date.  The  remaining  seven 
chapters  have  not  before  been  published. 

Rev  Prof.  Edwards  A.  Park,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.  then 
chief  editor  of  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  beside  admit- 
ting the  seven  articles — 199  pages  in  all — to  the 
columns  of  that  portly  quarterly,  about  ten  years 
afterward  wrote  as  follows,  ''  I  thought  very  highly  of 
your  articles  on  the  Sabbath  and  I  now  think  it 
would  be  well  to  republish  them.  ...  I  thought 
that  the  value  of  your  articles  consisted  largely  in 
their  extensive  quotations  from  men  eminent  in  the 
church."  The  greater  portion  of  those  quotations 
were  from  the  early  Fathers  and  pertain  to  these 
several  iDoints: 

1.  That  the  civil  and  ceremonial  laws  of  the  Jews 
were  temporary.  2.  That  all  moral  laws  are  per- 
manent. 3.  That  the  early  Christians  under 
direction   of   the  Apostles     sacredly    observed    the 


PREFACE 

Lord's  Day,  and  chiefly  refused  to  regard  the  observ- 
ance of  the  seventh  day  as  binding.  4.  That  the 
Apostles  and  early  Fathers  did  not  consider  the 
fourth  commandment  abolished  but  held  to  the  con- 
trary. 5.  That  some  of  them  taught  that  the  Lord's 
Day  takes,  in  substance,  the  place  of  the  seventh  day 
Sabbath.  6.  That  the  early  Fathers  did  not  appoint 
the  Lord's  Day  as  sacred,  but  the  Apostles  did  so 
appoint  it  and  the  early  Fathers  so  observed  it. 

Since  the  early  Christian  Fathers  held  and  taught 
these  things,  they  can  hardly  fail  to  be  true,  and  it 
is  highly  important  for  the  Sabbath  cause  that  they 
be  widely  known  to  be  true.  Oehler's  Old  Testa- 
ment Theology,  translated  from  German  into  English 
by  Eev.  Geo.  E.  Day,  of  Yale  Theological  Seminary, 
at  the  close  of  its  chapter  on  the  Sabbath,  cites  the 
aforementioned  articles  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  as 
on  the  "  Conservative  "  side  in  respect  to  Sabbatic 
views. 

Prof.  A.  E.  Waffle,  author  of  the  "  Green  Prize 
essay  on  the  Lord's  Day,"  in  his  appendix  says, 
"  Among  the  review  articles  I  would  call  esioecial  at- 
tention to  a  series  of  able  articles  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Sacra  (1879-81)  by  Rev.  Wm.  DeLoss  Love,  D.  D." 
He  speaks  with  like  approval  of  an  article  by  Prof. 
Schaff  in  the  Princeton  Review  Vol.  xxxv. 

Rev.  W.  F.  Crafts,  D.  D.  in  his  volume  "  The  Sab- 
bath for  Man,"  gives  like  credit  to  the  same  articles, 
and  in  his  appendix,  makes  a  very  long  quotation 
from  the  present  writer's  article  on  "St.  Paul  and 
the  Sabbath  "  in  "  Sabbath  Essays,"  which  in  meaning 
is  the  same,  in  respect  to  that  portion  of  Scripture, 
as    that  of  the  Series  of    Articles.      The  "  essays  " 


PREFACE 

were    given  at  Sabbath  Conventions  in  Springfield 
and  Boston  in  the  Autumn  of  1879. 

It  is  thought  that  the  above  and  other  similar  tes- 
timony, which  might  be  given,  will  seem  to  justify 
the  publication  of  the  following  work. 


CONTENTS 


Chapter  I. -.-7 

Introduction. 
Chapter  II.  -        - lo 

Origin  and  History  of  the  Sabbath. 

1  Its  basis  for  appointment  that  "God  rested." 

2  The  early  seventh  day. 

3  The  week  a  seven  of  days, 

4  The  Sabbath  at  the  giving  of  manna. 

5  Septenary  time  among  Gentile  nations. 

6  The  early  appointment  of  public  worship. 

7  The  Sabbath  in  cuneiform  inscriptions. 

8  The  Fourth  Commandment  itself  shows  a  previous 

sacred  seventh  day. 

Chapter  III.         -       - 33 

Christ  did  not  abolish  or  modify  the  Sabbath  of  the 
Fourth  Commandment. 

Chapter  IV. 48 

Christ's  apostles  did  not  teach  or  hold  that  either  the 
Law  or  the  Fourth  Commandment  is  abolished. 

Chapter  V.  75 

The  change  of  observance  from  the  seventh  to  the  Lord's 
Day  possible  snd  probable. 

Chapter  VI. 83 

"The  First  Day"  becomes  the  sacred  weekly  day  among 
the  early  Christians. 

Chapter  YII,         -.-...„_    120 

The  "Lord's  Day"  comes  to  be  the  Christian  Sabbath. 


Chapter  VIII. -    148 

The  Earl  J  Fathers  confirm  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles. 
Chapter  IX. 182 

The  Early  Fathers  on  the  ceremonial  and  moral  laws 
Chapter  X 224 

The  Christian  Sabbath  in  the  New  Dispensation. 
Chapter  XI -       -       -    264 

The  advantages  of  the  Sabbath  for  man's  physical  being. 
Chapter  XII. 273 

The  advantages  of  the  Sabbath  for  mental  rest,  capacity 

and  culture. 

Chapter  XIII. 2S0 

The  advantages  of  the  Sabbath  for  Society  and  Social 
Regeneration. 

Chapter  XIV. 285 

The  advantages  of  the  Sabbath  for  the  welfare   and 
preservation  of  the  State. 

Chapter  XV. 293 

The    advantages    of  the  Sabbath    in    its    reward    for 
observance. 

Chapter  XVI. 301 

The  advantages  and  necessity  of  the  Sabbath  in  morals 
and  religion. 

Chapter  XVII 309 

How  to  keep  the  Sabbath. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY, 

No  great  and  beneficent  reform  was  ever  accom- 
lished,  no  institution  of  value  and  power  ever  existed, 
without  a  firm  basis  of  truth,  of  doctrine.  Whenever 
the  doctrine  has  become  uncertain  in  the  minds  of 
the  people,  then  the  institution  has  languished,  the 
revolution  has  faltered.  This  has  been  illustrated 
in  the  history  of  the  Sabbath,  and  is  now  illustrated 
in  its  wide  desecration.  The  lax  continental  Sab- 
bath, now  so  much  imported  to  America,  comes  from 
erroneous  doctrine.  First,  it  proceeds  from  deficient 
faith  as  well  as  evil  practice  long  existing  in  the 
Romish  church.  Secondly,  from  the  untrue  position 
taken  by  the  Reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century,  in 
holding  that  the  "external  observance"  of  the  fourth 
commandment  was  merely  Jewish  and  ceremonial, 
and  therefore  is  now  void;  ^and,  thirdly,  from  a  wide- 
spread misrepresentation  of  the  Reformers'  actual 
views,  which  misrepresentation  has  been  caused  by 
ignoring  their  belief  that  the  Sabbath  was  given  to 
man  at  the  beginning,  and  is  moral  and  perpetual.' 

Without  a  divine  command  for  the  Sabbath,  men 
will  but  illy  keep  it.     They  require  more  basis  of 

'Calvin's  Institutes,  Book  ii.  c.  8,  Fourth  Com.;  Luther  on 
Gal.  ii.  19. 

2  Calvin's  Com..  Gen.  ii.  3;  Ex.  xx.  11;  Luther  on  Larger  Cate- 
chism; Augsburg  Confession. 


8  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

doctrine  than  doubt  or  example  or  expediency  can 
afford.  Nicholas  Bownd's  new  doctrine  of  the  Sab- 
bath, whether  strictly  correct  or  not,  resulted,  in  his 
day,  in  a  revival  of  religion  as  well  as  of  Sabbath 
observance.  The  Puritan  revival  of  Sabbath  doc- 
trine, whether  excessive  or  not,  was  both  the  fruit  and 
the  source  of  religious  revival.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  every  successful  effort  in  the  past  to  undermine 
or  weaken  the  doctrine  of  the  Sabbath  has  been  at- 
tended or  followed  by  bad  morals  and  irreligion. 

Probably  the  Sabbath,  or  Lord's  day,  was  never 
more  observed  than  now  as  a  holiday,  but  is  less  ob- 
served than  sometimes  in  the  past  as  a  holy  day.  The 
present  increasing  loss  in  respect  to  its  sacred  char- 
acter has  its  chief  cause  in  the  wide=spread  uncertain- 
ty in  respect  to  its  basis.  Besides  the  imported  de- 
fect in  doctrine  and  practice,  there  exist  serious  errors 
among  ourselves.  The  disciples  of  the  seventh^day 
Sabbath  have  been  increasing;  and  this  has  brought 
disesteem  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  or  Lord's  day, 
even  among  some  who  do  not  embrace  their  Sabbatar- 
ian views.  Much  has  been  said  against  the  Puritan 
Sabbath  to  the  detriment  of  the  real  Sabbath.  A 
growing  number  of  scholars,  and  even  ministers, 
have  been  teaching  that  we  cannot  found  the  ob- 
servance of  the  Lord's  day  upon  the  fourth  com- 
mandment; that  that  part  of  the  decalogue,  though 
not  ceremonial,  was  positive,  and  not  moral  in  its  na- 
ture; and  is  annulled  in  the  new  dispensation.  Some 
have  said  that  the  whole  decalogue,  as  it  stands 
in  Exodus,  has  been  abolished,  because  given  to  the 
Jews;  and  many  have  said  that  there  was  no  Sabbath 


DIVERSE  OPINIONS  9 

at  all  until  the  time  of    Moses,   and   after  the  exodus 
from  Egypt. 

Two  opinions  divide  Christendom  respecting  the 
basis  of  the  Lord's  day;  some  holding  that  its  au- 
thority is  simply  ecclesiastical,  derived  from  the 
exami^le  and  tenching  of  the  church  since  the  apos- 
tles, and  others  that  its  aulhorily  is  from  the  apostles, 
or  directly  from  Christ  himself.  The  Roman  Catholic 
church  teaches  that  ''Sundays  and lioly days  all  stand 
upon  the  same  foundation,  viz:  the  ordinance  of  the 
church";  and  that  Protestants  inconsistently  have  to 
acknowledge  the  infallibility  of  the  church,  by  de- 
pending on  her  authority  to  establish  the  observance 
of  Sunday.^  Thus,  instead  of  standing  on  a  firm 
foundation  of  doctrine,  we  are  somewhat  lloating  on 
a  sea  of  uncertainty.  Such  diverse  opinions  tend  to 
distraction  of  the  public  mind,  to  neglect  and  dese- 
cration of  the  weekly  day  of  rest,  and  even  to  disbelief 
and  unbelief  in  religion  itself.  Without  salutary 
change  we  shall  not  have  better  but  worse  Sabbath 
observance.  It  will  be  the  object  of  this  book  to 
awaken  more  interest  in  both  the  doctrine  and  sacred- 
ness  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  or  Lord's  day. 

'  Catholic  Christian  Instructed,  p.  211.  The  Shortest  Way  to 
end  Disputes  in  Religion,  by  Rev.  Robert  Manning,  approved 
by  Rev.  Bishop  Fitzpatrick,  p.  19. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  ORIGIN   AND   HISTORY   OF   THE   SABBATH. 

1.  Its  basis  for  appointment  was  the  fact  that 
*  God  rested.'  The  record  of  the  appointment  is  con- 
spicuously given  in  the  first  three  verses  of  the  sec- 
ond chapter  of  the  Bible,  really  belonging  to  the  first 
chapter.  Drs.  Paley,  Hessey,  R.  W.  Dale,  and  others 
tell  us  that  the  early  reference  to  the  Sabbath  in 
Genesis  is  no  proof  of  its  early  institution.^  We 
reply,  it  belongs  to  them  to  prove  their  objection. 
The  record  of  the  appointment  being  given  along 
with  that  of  the  creation,  the  prima  facie  evidence  is 
that  the  Sabbath  was  very  early  instituted  and  given 
to  man.  It  does  violence  to  the  record  to  suppose 
that  the  appointment  was  delayed  twenty-five  centu- 
ries— until  the  Israelites  were  approaching  Sinai. 

But  was  the  seventh  day  given  to  man  that  of 
twenty-four  hours,  or  that  of  God's  rest  from  the 
close  of  the  six  days'  creation  to  the  beginning  of 
some  other?  In  the  chief  sense  mail's  day;  for  its 
characteristics  are  those  of  the  natural  day  in  the 
fourth  commandment.  Both  are  blessed  and  sancti- 
fied. God  blessed  the  day  by  making  it  a  blessing — 
a  blessing  chiefly   to  man,   not  to  himself;   hence  it 

^  Paley's  Works,  Bk.  v.  c.  7;  Hessey  on  Sunday,  p.  102;  Dale 
on  the  Ten  commandments,  p.  88. 

10 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  HISTOR  Y  OF  THE  SA  BBA  TH        11 

was  man's  day.  Yet  God's  rest  was,  in  some  sense, 
the  prototype  for  that  of  man. 

Though  in  the  early  record  the  seventh  day  is  not 
called  the  Sabbath,  the  characteristics  of  the  two  days 
being  the  same,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  of 
their  identity.  In  the  commandment  not  only  the 
first  seventh  day,  but  each  succeding  seventh,  was 
consecrated;  and  probably  at  the  close  of  creation 
each  seventh  day,  as  well  as  the  first  seventh,  was 
devoted  to  religion  and  rest.  The  reason  that  in- 
duced the  appointment  of  the  day — "because  that 
in  it  he  had  rested" — appeals  to  intelligence,  and 
suggests  that  man  was  to  know  and  regard  the 
sacred  time.  And  since  he  could  know  it  in  the 
beginning,  it  is  presumable  that  it  was  then  given 
him.  He  early  could  enjoy  it,  and  by  it  commemo- 
rate his  own  origin  as  the  last  of  God's  earthly  crea- 
tion. God's  delight  in  the  day  must  have  been 
much  in  having  his  creatures  enjoy  it;  hence  it  is 
improbable  that  he  withheld  it  all  the  way  from 
Eden  to  Sinai.  The  day  not  being  an  ordinance  of 
nature,  and  not  causing  any  break  or  mark  in  physi- 
cal events,  man  could  not  learn  the  specific  hebdom- 
adal time  from  nature.  He  needed  its  positive 
appointment,  and  it  having  in  itself  a  blessing  for 
him,  evidence  of  its  early  appointment  may  be  ex- 
pected. 

2.  It  apijears  probable  that  the  primitive  pair, 
with  their  immediate  descendants,  early  began  to 
observe  the  seventh  day.  Cain  made  an  offering  to 
the  Lord  "  in  process  of  time  "--at  the  end  of  days — 
end  of  some  number  of  days.  That  number,  in  this 
instance,  was  probably  .sr' re/?;  for  that  was  evidently 


12  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

the  more  common  multitude  of  days  employed  by 
Jehovah  in  his  appointments  with  men,  and  by  man 
in  his  reckoning  of  periods.  The  first  length  of  time 
which,  according  to  the  record,  we  are  certain,  God 
used  in  his  communications  with  men,  was  the  seven 
days'  notice  he  gave  Noah  before  causing  it  to  rain 
upon  the  earth  (Gen.  vii.  4,  10);  and  in  the  first 
ncc'ount  we  have  of  man's  first  reckoning  of  time, 
Koah  stayed  seven  days  before  sending  forth  the 
dove  freni  the  ark  the  second  time,  and  other  seven 
before  sending  it  the  third  time  (Gen,  viii.  10,  12). 
If  he  had  waited  seven  days  only  once,  it  would  have 
been  less  noticeable;  doing  it  twice  indicates  that  he 
often  or  constantly  observed  the  specific  weekly  time. 
]l  is  improl>able  that  he  kept  weekly  time  without  a 
kiiovvledge  of  the  Sabbath  that  marked  off  for  him 
ilie  weeks.  We  know  of  no  day  or  event  that  ever 
designated  weekly  time  as  the  Sabbath  or  Lord's  day 
has  done.  We  cannot  suppose  that  God  gave  primi- 
tive man  the  week  without  a  sacred  day;  he  would 
sooner  give  it  for  the  sake  of  that  day  than  for  any 
other  reason. 

"  God  remembered  Noah  "  (Gen.  viii.  1).  He  did 
not  let  the  flood  continue  too  long;  he  stopped  the 
fountains  of  the  deep  and  the  windows  of  heaven;  he 
sent  a  wind  to  assuage  the  waters.  And  Noah  re- 
membered God;  he  doubtless  consulted  him  about 
opening  the  ark,  about  sending  forth  the  raven  and 
the  dove,  about  waiting  other  seven  days  twice  over; 
naturally  connecting  the  waiting  with  religious  ser- 
vices appropriate  to  the  seventh  day;  and  when  upon 
dry  ground  again  he  built  an  altar  and  sacrificed. 
"  There  is  certainly  indicated  here  a  sevenfold  divi- 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  HISTOR  Y  OF  THE  SABBA TH        l(i 

sion  of  days,  whatever  may  be  its  reasons.  Of  these, 
no  one  seems  more  easy  and  natural  than  that  which 
refers  it  to  the  traditionary  remembrance  of  the  crea- 
tion and  its  seventh  day  of  rest."  ' 

3.  Coming  to  the  age  of  the  early  patriarchs,  we 
find  Jacob  and  Laban  speaking  so  familiarly  of  the 
"week"  (Gen.  xxix.  27,  28)— a  seven  of  days — that 
we  infer  the  common  acquaintance  of  their  own  fami- 
lies, and  of  their  fathers,  with  that  method  of  reckon- 
ing time.  When  Jacob  died,  Joseph  "made  a  mourn- 
ing for  his  father  seven  days"  (Gen.  1.  10),  many 
Egyptians  being  with  him.  Here,  in  all,  we  find  peo- 
ple of  Haran,  — a  part  of  ancient  Syria, — and  of  Ca- 
naan, and  of  Egypt,  observing  weeks.  Measuring 
some  time  in  that  way,  probably  most  of  them  so 
measured  all,  as  we  know  was  subsecj^uently  the  case 
with  the  Jews.  Seven  days  elapsed  in  Egypt  be- 
tween the  smiting  of  the  river  and  the  Lord's  next 
apj)eal  to  Pharaoh  through  his  servant  Moses  (Ex. 
vii.  25). 

That  the  number  seven  became  representative  and 
symbolical  after  the  giving  of  the  fourth  command- 
ment is  not  surprising;  but  what  gave  it  such  signifi- 
cance before  the  Mosaic  period,  except  that  God  in 
the  beginning  made  the  seventh  day  conspicuous  and 
sacred  to  man?  The  Lord  protected  Cain  by  a  threat- 
ening of  sevenfold  vengeance  upon  any  that  should 
slay  him  (Gen.  iv.  15);  and  Lamech  boasted  that  he 
would  be  protected  by  a  threatening  of  seventy  and 
sevenfold  vengeance  (Gen.  iv.  24).  Jacob  would 
serve  seven  years  for  Rachel  (Gen.  xxix.  18,  20),  and 
he  bowed  before  Esau  seven  times  (Gen.  xxxiii.  3). 

'  Tnyler  Lewis, — I>ange  on  Genesis,  p.  311. 


U  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

In  Pharoah's  dream  seven  kine  appeared,  and  seven 
other  kine  ate  them  up;  seven  ears  of  corn  came  up, 
and  seven  thin  ears  devoured  them  (Gen.  xli.  2-7). 
Then  Joseph  showed  Pharoah  that  seven  years  of 
plenty  were  to  be  followed  by  seven  years  of  famine; 
and  the  two  series  of  seven  years  came  (Gen.  xli.  25- 
30  xlvii.  53,  54).  It  is  highly  probable  that  this 
early  symbolic  use  of  the  number  seven  had  some 
connection  with  a  sacred  seventh  day.  Keil  and 
Delitzsch  affirm  that  the  week  was  established  at  the 
creation.^  But  since  nature  did  not  mark  off  the 
weeks  as  it  does  the  days,  what  did  divide  them  from 
each  other,  save  ceremonies  or  services,  and  those  of 
a  religious  character?  Times  and  seasons,  or  their 
limits, — their  first  and  last  days, — w^ere  customarily 
attended  witli  religious  services.  What  more  natural 
than  that  their  weeks  were  marked  off  to  them  by 
sacred  or  religious  days?  How  did  they  know  weekly 
time?  By  the  mere  approximate  of  the  fourth  of  a 
lunar  month  ?  Or,  by  the  seven  notes  of  the  diatonic 
scale?  Or  through  the  astronomical  seven  planets, 
then  so  awkwardly  numbered  as  to  embrace  the  sun 
and  moon?  Or  was  there  the  clear  and  dignified  rea- 
son that  God  in  the  beginning,  after  the  six  days  of 
creation,  set  apart,  blessed,  and  sanctified  the  seventh 
day  ?  Did  the  prominence  of  the  number  seven  make 
the  week,  or  did  the  sacred  day  make  both?  History 
ascribes  the  earliest  knowledge  of  astronomical  sci- 
ence to  the  Babylonians  and  Egyptians.^  But  Noah 
observed  septenary  time  four  hundred  years  before 
Egypt  is  even  heard  of,  and  near  a  thousand  years 

^  Com.  on  Pent,,  Vol.  i.  p.  149. 

'  Lewis's  Astronomy  of  Ancients,  p.  256. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  HISTORY  OF  THE  SABBATH.       15 

before  Babylon  appears.  The  celestial  bodies,  once 
named  the  seven  planets,  and  numbered  in  the  fol- 
lowing order, — Saturn,  Jupiter,  Mars,  Sun,  Venus, 
Mercury,  Moon,  ^ — how  much  tendency  have  they  to 
cause  the  observance  of  weekly  time?  But  weekly 
,  time  first  observed,  then  how  much  tendency  in  men 
to  name  the  seven  days  after  the  seven  planets.  Be- 
sides, no  evidence  appears  that  these  seven  heavenly 
bodies  were  early  selected  and  named.  Plato  and 
authors  contemporary  with  him  discourse  of  the  seven 
planets;  but  Homer  and  Hesiod  were  apparently  igno- 
rant of  them,  though  speaking  often  of  the  stars.^ 
Tayler  Lewis  says  truly  of  those  who  claim  to  be 
"the  higher  school  of  criticism,"  had  they  found  in 
some  Hindoo  or  Persian  book  a  reference  to  some 
sevenfold  division  of  time,  and  in  a  similar  writing 
closely  connected  with  it  an  account  of  a  hexameral 
creation  with  its  succeeding  day  of  rest,  they  would 
have  discovered  a  connection  between  the  two  ideas. 
But  they  violate  their  own  canon,  "that  the  Bible  is 
to  be  interpreted  like  any  other  ancient  writings,"  ^ 
and  are  unreasonably  sceptical  as  to  the  connection 
between  the  week  made  up  of  God's  creative  work  and 
his  rest,  and  the  week  subsequently  observed  by  man. 
The  hebdomadal  division  of  time  seems  as  well 
known  to  the  Hebrews  before  the  giving  of  the  law, 
and  previous  to  their  leaving  Egypt,  as  afterward; 
the  passover,  given  before  the  exodus,  being  pro- 
longed seven  days,  as  well  as  the  feast  of  tabernacles, 
given  in  the  wilderness.  God's  rest  began  at  man's 
origin;  and  apparently  man's  knowledge  of  that  rest 

1  Ibid.,  p.  246.    2  Ibid.,  pp.  62,  144,  290. 
'Lange  on  Genesis,  p.  811. 


16  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

and  his  observance  of  weekly  time,  also  then  com- 
menced. Men,  knowing  the  week  and  the  reason, 
would  even  naturally  have  a  special  regard  for  the 
limit  day,  the  seventh  of  the  w^eek. 

4.  When  the  Israelites  journeyed  in  the  wilder- 
ness, they  were  directed  o2  God  to  gather  twice  as 
much  manna  on  the  sixth  as  on  any  other  day,  that 
the  seventh  might  not  be  desecrated  by  gathering 
during  its  hours  (Ex.  xvi.  22,  23,  29).  As  this  oc- 
curred before  the  decalogue  was  given  on  Sinai,  it 
shows  that  the  Sabbath  existed  previous  to  the  latter 
event,  and  favors  the  view  that  the  w^eekly  day  of  rest 
was  made  known  to  man  at  the  beginning.  Dr.  Hey- 
lin,  ^  and  Dr.  Paley  ^  a  century  and  a  half  afterwards, 
with  others  following  them,  gave  their  opinion  that 
this  transaction  in  the  wilderness  was  the  first  insti- 
tution of  the  Sabbath.^  But  the  first  mention  of  the 
day  in  this  j)assage,  which  is  the  first  by  the  name 
"Sabbath"  in  the  scriptures,  refers  to  what  God  had 
said  of  it:  ''The  Lord  hath  said"  (Ex.  xvi.  23).  If 
that  was  just  previous,  and  the  Sabbath  was  origi- 
nated on  this  occasion,  then  it  was  appointed  in  a 
private  way,  and  first  announced  to  Moses  alone, 
which  does  not  comport  with  its  importance.  We 
naturally  should  expect  a  fuller  record,  and  more  said 

^  Works,  fol.  p.  348,  Part.  i.  c.  4.  ^  Moral  and  Political  Philos- 
ophy, Bk.  V.  c.  7. 

3  Dr.  Paley's,  or  the  Paley-Heylin  views,  evidently  bore  fruit 
after  their  kind.  Rev.  J.  Willison  of  Dundee,  Scotland,  in  a 
work  on  the  "Santification  of  the  Sabbath,"  published  in  1819, 
refers  to  the  same  sentiments  as  advocated  by  Philip  Limborch. 
Then,  as  now,  they  seem  to  have  been  inimical  to  the  most  sa- 
cred observance  of  the  Sabbath. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  HISTOR  Y  OF  THE  SABBA  TH.       1 7 

of  it,  like  that  in  the  second  of  Genesis  or  the  twen- 
tietli  of  Exodus. 

The  Lord,  in  his  rebuke  of  some  for  going  out  on 
the  Sabbath  to  gather  manna,  says:  "How  long  re- 
fuse ye  to  keep  my  commandments  and  my  laws" 
(verse  28)?  This,  with  tlie  strong  language  of  the 
next  verse,  seems  to  imply  a  more  familiar  acquaint- 
ance with  the  command  than  the  offenders  had,  if 
they  heard  it  first  only  the  day  previous.  They  were 
evidently  familiar  with  the  sixth  day,  and,  therefore, 
doubtless,  with  the  seventh,  and  the  iveek.  The  Sab- 
bath, in  this  instance,  seems  to  have  come  on  the  six- 
teenth of  the  month,  and — it  not  being  on  the  four- 
teenth—this fact  is  against  the  theory  of  the  quar- 
terly division  of  the  month  to  constitute  the  week, 
and  favors  the  independent  and  divinely  appointed 
date  of  the  Sabbath.  The  original — "  Let  to=morrow 
be  rest,  a  holy  Sabbath  to  the  Lord"  (ver.  23) — de- 
fines and  emphasizes  th«  rest  by  a  phrase  used  here 
first,  and  only  six  times  in  the  Bible;  and  this  earliest 
use  may  have  been  to  produce  a  new  and  strong  im- 
pression on  the  multitude  that  had  just  issued  from 
idolatrous  Egypt,  and  needed  more  instruction  and  a 
more  vigorous  memory  concerning  that  day. 

Objection :  The  surprise  of  the  Hebrews  in  finding 
a  double  quantity  of  manna  on  the  sixth  day  shows 
that   the    Sabbath    was  not  before  known  to  them.^ 

Reply:  It  was  the  miracle  of  a  double  suj)ply  on 
one  day  that  astonished  them;  a  miraculous  provision 
for  the  observance  of  the  seventh  day  they  had  not 
before  seen. 

'Hengstenberg,  Hessey,  Sunday,  p.  Ill;  Garden,  Smith's 
Bible  Diet.,  p.  2764. 


18  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Objection  second:  The  original  is  ''a"  and  not 
"  the  holy  Sabbath,"  and  therefore  the  people  were 
not  familiar  with  the  day,  and  it  had  just  been  ap- 
pointed. Beply:  The  repetition  of  the  word  "  rest," 
in  the  phrase  "  rest  the  holy  Sabbath," — Sabbath 
meaning  rest, — to  define  and  emphasize  the  nature 
of  the  day  to  those  who  in  Egypt  may  have  partially 
forgotten  it,  because  as  bondmen  not  permitted  to 
observe  it,  or  to  those  who  may  have  been  only  pros- 
elytes from  the  Egyptians,  might  naturally  cause  the 
expression  "rest,"  instead  of  "the  rest."  Beply 
second:  The  sabbatical  year,  each  seventh  year,  and 
day  of  atonement,  are  also  designated  by  the  word 
"  Sabbath,"  and  therefore  the  definite  article  may 
have  been  omitted  in  reference  to  the  seventh-day 
Sabbath.  Some  claim — probably  with  insufficient 
reason — that  the  passover,  appointed  previous  to  this 
occasion  in  the  wilderness,  was  also  sometimes 
called  a  Sabbath/  Beply  third:  Preceding  this 
time  the  seventh  day,  though  sacredly  observed, 
may  not  have  been  known  as  the  Sabbath, — rest, — 
and  therefore  now,  when  first  called  such,  the  defin- 
ite article  would  naturally  be  omitted.  We  too 
readily  suppose  the  day  must  have  been  called  Sab- 
bath, or  nothing.  One  measuring  rule  of  time  then 
was  seven  days;  and  the  seventh,  being  the  conclud- 
ing one,  was  a  marked  day,  and  independent  of  the 
divine  appointment,  might  easily  have  become  a 
sacred  day.  Previous  to  this,  the  seventh  day  of  the 
passover  feast  had  been  made  religious  and  devoted 
to  "a  holy  convocation"  (Ex.  xii.  16).  The  early 
generations,    especially,  needed  the  appointment  of 

^  Caspar!,  Bib.  Sao.,  Vol.  xiTiii.  p.  471,        '  Paley.        *  Paley. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  HISTORY  OF  THE  SABBA TH.        19 

convocation  and  worship.  After  the  bondage  of 
Egypt  rest  was  more  required  and  prized,  and  the 
usual  name  of  the  sacred  day  may  then  have  been 
changed  from  seventh  to  Sabbath. 

Ohjeciion  third:  In  Ezekiel  (Ezek.  xx.  10—12) 
God  is  reiDresented  as  giving  his  Sabbaths  to  Israel 
in  the  wilderness,  as  though  they  were  then  first  in- 
stituted." Reply:  He  did  not  merely  give  them;  he 
gave  them  ''to  be  a  sign";  he  wppointed  them  then  to 
be  a  sign  of  his  covenant  with  Israel.  That  does  not 
denote  recent  origin,  any  more  than  God's  appoint- 
ment of  the  bow  in  the  cloud  as  a  "  token  of  a  cove- 
nant" (Gen.  ix.  13)  denotes  that  it  then  first  exist- 
ed. All  the  commandments  were  to  be  the  sign  of  a 
covenant  (Deut.  v.  3;  vi.  8),  but  some,  at  least,  were 
given  long  before  their  engrossment  at  Sinai. 

Objection  fourth:  In  Nehemiah  (ix.  14)  God  is 
represented  as  making  knoicn  his  Sabbath  upon 
Mount  Sinai,  as  though  then  he  first  made  it  known.^ 
Beptij:  He  did  there  emphcdiccdhj  make  it  known  to 
those  who  had  in  Egyi3t  partially  forgotten  it,  and 
not  been  allowed  to  observe  it;  but  not  then  first, 
because  he  at  least  made  it  known  in  the  wilderness 
before  Israel  arrived  at  Sinai.  Bepli)  second:  God  is 
elsewhere  represented  as  making  known  his  "  mighty 
acts"  and  "glorious  majesty  (Ps.  cxlv.  12;  1  Chron. 
xvi.  8);  yet  that  does  not  imply  the  first  proclama- 
tion of  them,  but  a  more  fall  one.  Though  this 
record  concerning  the  manna  does  not  prove  the 
previous  knowledge  of  the  seventh  day  as  sacred,  it 
does  not  prove  the  lack  of  such  knowledge.  It  adds 
to  other  strong  probabilities  that  the  seventh  was  at 
the  beginning  made  known  to  man  as  religious. 


20  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Objection:  "If  the  Sabbath  had  been  instituted  at 
the  time  of  the  creation  .  .  .  and  if  it  had  been  ob- 
served all  along  from  that  time  to  the  departure  of 
the  Jews  out  of  Egypt  .  .  .  it  appears  unaccount- 
able that  no  mention  of  it,  no  occasion  of  even  the  ob- 
scurest allusion  to  it,  should  occur."  ^  Reply  :'^  To 
object  that  the  Bible,  in  its  few  brief  memoranda  of 
their  (the  patriarchs')  lives,  says  nothing  about  their 
Sabbath=keei)ing,  any  more  than  it  tells  us  of  their 
forms  of  prayer  and  modes  of  worship),  is  a  worthless 
argument."  ^  The  sacred  seventh  day  may  have  been 
given  in  Eden,  and  yet  not  "  observed  all  along." 
We  have  shown  that  there  is  probably  repeated 
allusion  to  it  in  the  septenary  division  of  time. 
Notwithstanding  the  impressive  promulgation  of 
the  fourth  command  through  Moses  on  Sinai,  the 
Scriptures  do  not  mention  the  Sabbath  between  the 
death  of  Moses  and  near  that  of  David — about  four 
hundred  and  thirty-six  years, — and  yet  it  was  gener- 
ally observed.  We  go  through  the  histories  of 
Joshua,  of  the  Judges,  of  Samuel,  and  of  Saul  with- 
out its  mention.  It  is  the  general  belief  that  the  in- 
stitution of  sacrifice  was  observed  from  the  time  of 
the  fall;  but  no  mention  is  made  of  it  between  Abel's 
offering  and  Noah's  building  an  altar  after  he  left 
the  ark, — by  the  usual  chronology,  about  sixteen  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years.  There  is  no  record  respecting 
circumcision — boasted  rite  of  the  Jews — between 
Israel's  renewal  of  it  by  Joshua  on  entering  Canaan 
and  the   circumcision   of   John   the   Baptist, — about 

*  Paley's   Principles   of   Moral  and  Political  Philosophy,  Bk. 
5,c.  7. 
^Tayler   Lewis, — Lange  on   Genesis,  p.  197, 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  HISTOR  Y  OF  THE  SABBA  TH.        21 

fourteen  hundred  and  fifty  years, — save  Jeremiah's 
allusion  once  to  the  literal,  and  once  to  the  figurative, 
observance  (ix.  25,  26;  iv.  4).  Scripture  history  is 
given  so  much  in  outline  and  isolated  sections,  that 
the  lack  of  any  distinct  mention  of  the  seventh  day  as 
sacred  between  the  creation  and  Moses  is  no  approach 
to  proof  that  it  was  not  observed.  The  words 
''seven,''  "seventh,''  and  ''sevenfold"  occur  three 
hundred  and  eighty^ three  times  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  and  not  without  some  special  cause. 
The  cause  and  origin  of  so  frequent  use  certainly 
preceded  the  giving  of  the  fourth  commandment; 
though  that  event  amplified  the  cause  and  increased 
the  use.  What  cause  so  probable  as  that  Grod  rested 
the  seventh  day,  and  blessed  and  hallowed  it? 

5.  The  Jewish  weekly  measurement  of  time  had  a 
striking  similarity  in  a  like  reckoning  among  other 
nations — the  Romans,  Greeks,  Egyptians,  Assyrians, 
Chaldees,  Persians,  Hindoos,  Chinese,  Peruvians. 
The  claim  that  the  Greeks  and  Romans  obtained 
their  weekly  divisions  of  time  from  the  Egyptians,^ 
and  not  until  about  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era,  is  not  warranted.  Some  noted  ancient  Greek 
and  Roman  authors  speak  of  the  seventh  day  as  sa- 
cred. Clement  of  Alexandria,  writing  in  the  second 
century,  says:  "The  seventh  day  is  recognized  as 
sacred,  not  by  the  Hebrews  only,  but  also  by  the 
Greeks."^  He  then  quotes  from  ancient  authors — 
Hesiod:  "The  first,  fourth,  and  seventh  day  is  holy"; 
Homer:  "And  on  the  seventh  there  came  the  sa- 
cred day";  "The  seventh  was  sacred";  Callimachus. 

^  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  p.  2764. 

2  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xii.  pp.  284,  285. 


^2  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

"Among  good  days  is  the  seventh  day";  ''The  sev- 
enth is  among  the  prime,  and  the  seventh  is  perfect." 
Further,  Clement  says:  "The  elegies  of  Solon,  too,  in- 
tensely deify  the  seventh  day."  "  Among  the  Greeks 
says  a  modern  writer, "  seven  was  sacred  to  Apollo 
and  to  Dionysos,  .  .  .  particularly  sacred  in 
Eudoea,  where  the  number  was  found  to  pervade,  as 
it  were,  almost  every  sacred,  private,  or  domestic  re. 
lation."  ^  Professor  James  Hadley  enumerates  nearly 
a  score  of  instances  where  the  number  seven  is  sig- 
nificantly used  in  Homer,  and  four  cases  in  Odyssey 
of  noted  action  continuing  six  days,  and  terminating 
on  the  seventh  in  some  critical  event — "a  curious 
circumstance, "  he  says,  "in  which  we  might  almost 
be  tempted  to  trace  either  a  daw^ning  or  a  vanishing 
of  the  week."  ^  He  states,  as  other  authors  do,  that 
the  Pythagoreans  had  a  special  regard  for  the  number 
seven,  and  that  Philolaus,  in  an  exposition  of  Pyth- 
agorean doctrine,  says  concerning  God,  the  author 
and  governor  of  all  things,  that  "  he  is  without  var- 
iation, even  like  himself,  and  like  no  other,  even  as 
the  number  seven."  Among  the  Persians,  in  the  re- 
ligion of  Zoroaster,  who  was  nearly  or  quite  contem- 
porary  with  Moses,  the  number  seven  was  sacred;  and 
Persian  modern  literature  "abounds  in  sevens."  ^  Far 
back  in  Brahminism  the  number  seven  was  especially 
noted  and  frequent,  and  that  w^ithout  being  traceable 
to  Egypt  or  any  other  nation.  Porphyry  says:  "The 
Phoenicians  consecrated  one  day  in  seven  as  holy.  *'  * 

'  Chambers'  Encyclopaedia,  Vol.  viii.  pp.  3GA.  865, 

2  Essays  p.  326. 

•''Hadley '8  Essays,  p.  329. 

*  Cited  by  President  Dwight,  ^VorkB,  Vol.  iii.  p.  255. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  HIST  OR  Y  OF  THE  SABBA  TH.        23 

The  Sclavonians,  while  yet  in  their  ancient  paganism, 
held  a  weekly  festival.  ^  Lucian  speaks  of  boys  as 
having  the  seventh  day  for  play.  ^  Theophilus  of 
Antioch  has  this  phrase:  "Concerning  the  seventh 
day,  which  all  men  acknowledge."  ^  Former  inhabi- 
tants of  the  coast  of  Guinea  observed  a  weekly  day  in 
social  and  religious  services.*  An  ancient  Chinese 
writer  says:  "Every  seven  days  comegthe  revolution" 
— of  the  heavenly  bodies,  as  Chinese  scholars  ex- 
plain,— indicating  some  former  septenary  division  of 
time;  and  Gillespie^  says  that  by  the  Chinese  calen- 
dar now  there  are  four  names  in  each  lunar  month, 
answering  to  our  four  Sundays  of  the  month.  Of 
Grecian  wise  men  seven  were  singled  out  six  centur- 
ies before  Christ,  and   Plato    gives    the  first    list.® 

There  were  also  the  seven  wonders  of  the  world, 
and  the  seven  ages  of  human  life.  The  book  of  Job 
shows  the  observance  of  Septenary  time  in  some  land 
other  than  that  of  Israel,  and  in  an  age  probably  be- 
fore the  time  of  Moses  (Job  ii.  13). 

Philo,  contemporary  of  Christ,  wrote  a  dissertation 
on  the  number  seven,  and  said:  "That  day  is  the  fes- 
tival not  of  one  city  or  one  country,  but  of  all  the 
earth"  ';  meaning,  doubtless,  that  it  was  designed  for 
all,  though  not  observed  by  all.  The  Saracens  had  a 
weekly  sacred  day  before  the  time  of  Mohammed^; 
and  he  made  the  number  seven  conspicuous  in  the 

'  Helmaldus,  cited  by  Ussher,  Works,  Vol.  xii.  p.  578. 
2  Ibid.,  p.  580.  3A.nt.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol  iii.  p.  79. 

*  Hurd's  Rites  and  Ceremonies  (1799),  p.  456. 
^Land  of  Sinim,  p.  161;  cited  by  Gillillan,  p.  360. 
''Hadley's  Essays,  p.  826. 

^  Yonge's  Translation,  Bohn's  Ecclesiastical  Library,  Vol.  i. 
p.  26.  ^  Purchas'  Pilgrimage,  cited  by  GilfiUan,  p.  359, 


24  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Koran,  though  unable  to  rer.d  the  Bible,  by  which  he 
may,  however,  have  been  indirectly  influenced,  ^  The 
importance  and  dignity  of  the  number  seven  is 
shown  by  Shakespeare's  use  of  it.  La  Place  said: 
"  The  week  is  perhaps  the  most  ancient  and  incontes- 
table monument  of  human  knowledge." 

Even  if  in  some  cases  in  the  far  past,  as  that  of 
Hesiod,  the  reference  be  to  the  day  of  the  month,  and 
not  of  the  week,  still,  the  question-  is,  How  came  the 
seventh  to  be  a  noted  and  sacred  day  in  so  many  na- 
tions, and  generally  without  known  copying  from  each 
other?  The  weekly  division  might  be  forgotten 
during  the  long  ages,  and  yet  the  number  seven  re- 
main sacred.  That  other  days  than  the  seventh  have 
been  sacred  or  noted  among  gentile  nations  does  not 
weaken  the  argument.  There  were  other  sacred 
days  and  numbers  in  the  Jewish  economy;  though 
scarcely  any  number  in  any  nation  has  been  so  con- 
spicuous as  "  seven. " 

Notwithstanding  the  Egyptians  and  others  named 
the  seven  days  after  the  seven  planets,  that  does  not 
prove  that  there  was  an  astronomical  cause  for  the 
septenary  division;  for  there  are  no  phenomena  of 
the  heavens  sufficient  to  suggest  it.  After  that  di- 
vision was  made  and  observed,  and  its  cause  and 
authority  forgotten,  the  astronomical  reason  may 
have  been  originated  in  human  fancy.  ^  The  fact 
that  the  seventh  is  so  generally  a  marked  or  sacred 
day,  with  no  satisfactory  reason  for  it  external  to  the 
Scriptures,  favors  the  view  that  it  was  appointed  as  a 
religious  day  in  the  beginning.     If  so,  it  was  indeed 

^  Hadleys  Essays,  p.  337. 

2  Tayler  Lewis,  — Lange  on  Gen.  p.  311. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  HISTOR  Y  OF  THE  SA BBA  TH.        25 

for  man,  and  it  may  be  expected  to  continue  while 
the  race  endures. 

Ohjedion:  "It  is  no  safe  foundation  for  our  think- 
ing ourselves  bound  to  keep  it  [the  Sabbath],  that 
the  patriarchs  kept  it  before  the  law  was  given,  and 
that  the  commandment  had  existed  before  the  time 
of  Moses,  and  was  only  confirmed  by  him  and  re- 
peated. .  .  .  For  if  the  law  itself  be  done  away 
in  Christ,  much  more  the  things  before  the  law." ' 
"  And  if  Moses  has  vanished  in  the  diviner  glory  of 
Christ,  all  that  preceded  Moses  must  have  vanished, 
too."  ^  Reply :  Ceremonial  and  some  other  laws  given 
expressly  to  the  Jews  were  in  force  only  while  Juda- 
ism lasted.  But  moral  commands — as,  to  worship 
God,  and  not  to  kill  or  steal — given  to  Adam,  or 
Noah,  or  any  other  representative  not  of  a  nation, 
but  of  mankind,  most  certainly  hold  their  binding 
force  upon  all  men.  Therefore,  the  Sabbath  or  any 
sacred  day,  having  moral  elements,  if  given  to  the 
race  once,  must,  in  respect  to  those  elements,  hold 
still,  wherever  known.  Besides,  moral  elements, 
principles,  laws,  are  not  done  away  in  Christ,  even  if 
their  application  and  use  be  changed.  The  things 
done  away,  or  vanished,  in  Christ  are  only  such  as 
have  their  fulfillment,  completion  or  enlargement  in 
him. 

6.  The  fact  of  a  septenary  division  of  time  in  the 
early  ages  being  established,  the  associated  fact  that 
public  worship  w^as  in  early  time  appointed  and 
observed,  gives  a  high  degree  of  probability  that  the 
seventh  day  was  sacred.     ''  Then  began  men  to  call 

*  Dr.  Thomas  Arnold,  Sermons,  Vol.  iii.  No.  xxii.  pp.  256,  267. 
2  Dr.  R.  W.  Dale,  Ten  Commandments,  p.  94. 


26  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

upon  the  name  of  the  Lord"  (Gen.  iv.  26).  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  regarded  this  as  teaching  that  social 
and  public  worship  then  commenced.'  It  cannot 
mean  that  there  was  previously  no  private  worship; 
that  Seth  did  not  pray  before  his  son  Enos  was  born, 
nor  any  others  prior  to  that  date.  I^ange,  and  Keil 
and  Delitzsch  also  hold  that  this  passage  announces 
the  inauguration  of  public  religious  services.  We 
know,  further,  that  in  that  primitive  era  there  were 
consecrated  places  of  worship.  Noah  built  an  altar 
unto  the  Lord  (Gen.  viii.  20).  So  did  Abraham  at 
both  his  first  and  second  stopping=place  in  Canaan 
(Gen.  xii.  1,  8);  and  to  the  latter  he  came  again  for 
worship  after  returning  from  Egypt  (Gen.  xiii.  3,  4). 
He  built  another  altar  after  separating  from  Lot  (Gen. 
xiii.  18),  and  still  another  at  Beersheba  (Gen.  xxi.  33). 
Isaac  built  an  altar  when  he  dwelt  in  Gerar  (Gen. 
xxvi.  6,  25).  Jacob  built  one  at  Shalem  (Gen.  xxxiii. 
18,  20),  and  one  at  Bethel  (Gen.  xxxv.  7),  and  offered 
sacrifices  at  Beersheba.  It  must  have  been  the  cus- 
tom to  prepare  and  consecrate  places  of  worship. 
Here  are  three  positive  factors,  existing  long  before 
the  time  of  Moses:  septenary  division  of  time,  public 
worship,  and  places  for  public  worship.  When  did 
they  worship?  On  some  particular  day,  at  a  stated 
time,  doubtless,  as  we  know  their  posterity  soon  did. 
When  was  that  time,  unless  on  the  seventh  day,  the 
weekly  limit  in  the  hebdomadal  period,  which,  at 
least,  was  the  time  a  few  centuries  afterwards?  Daily 
worship  of  equal  length  would  have  been  unnatural. 
Daily  sacrifices  would  have  required  too  much  time 
of  each  small  community,  and  too  much  expenditure 
*  Phelps'  Perpetuity  of  the  Sabbath,  p.  3i. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  HISTORY  OF  THE  SABBA TH.        27 

of  the  life  of  animals.  The  later  Jews  were  re- 
quired to  offer  at  Jerusalem,  on  the  Sabbath,  double 
the  number  of  sacrifices  they  offered  on  other  days; 
the  earlier  Jews  were,  therefore,  more  likely  to  offer 
weekly  sacrifice  on  the  seventh  day  than  on  any  other. 
7.  But  we  have  other  important  ancient  evidence, 
in  the  Chaldean  account  of  the  creation,  as  given  by 
the  cuneiform  inscriptions  found  in  the  ruins  of  an- 
cient Babylon.  The  lamented  George  Smith,  noted  in 
Assyrian  researches,  says:  "In  the  year  1869  I  dis- 
covered, among  other  things,  a  curious  religious  cal- 
endar of  the  Assyrians,  in  which  every  month  is  di- 
vided into  four  weeks,  and  the  seventh  days,  or  'sab- 
baths,' are  marked  out  as  days  on  which  no  work 
should  be  undertaken."^  H.  Fox  Talbot,  F.R.S.,  in 
his  translation  of  these  Creation  Tablets,  renders  two 
lines  thus: 

"  On  the  seventh  day  he  appointed  a  holy  day. 
And  to  cease  from  all  business  he  commanded." 

He  also  says:  "  This  fifth  tablet  is  very  important, 
because  it  affirms,  clearly  in  my  opinion,  that  the 
origin  of  the  Sabbath  was  coeval  with  creation ....  It 
has  been  known  for  some  time  that  the  Babylonians 
observed  the  Sabbath  with  considerable  strictness. 
On  that  day  the  king  was  not  allowed  to  take  a  drive 
in  his  chariot;  various  meats  were  forbidden  to  be 
eaten,  and  there  were  a  number  of  other  minute  restric- 
tions. .  .  .  But  it  was  not  known  that  they  believ- 
ed the  Sabbath  to  have  been  ordained  at  the  creation. 
I  have  found,  however,  since  this  translation  of  the 

^  Assyrian  Discoveries,  p.  12. 


28  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

fifth  tablet  was  completed,  that  Mr.  Sayce  has  recent- 
ly published  a  similiar  opinion."  * 

Rev.  A.  H.  Sayce,  M.  A.,  so  far  as  appears,  has 
translated  more  of  this  "  Babylonian  Saints '  Calen- 
dar "  than  any  other  person.  Both  he  and  Mr.  Smith 
have  translated  a  Babylonian  list  of  the  thirteen 
months  of  the  year  and  their  patron  deities.  Mr. 
Sayce  has  translated  in  full  the  memorandum  of  each 
of  the  thirty  days  of  the  month  in  this  calendar. 
That  for  the  seventh  day  reads  thus: 

"The  seventh  day.  A  feast  of  Merodach  (and) 
Zir^Panitu.    A  festival. 

A  sabbath.  The  prince  of  many  nations  the  flesh 
of  birds  (and)  cooked  fruit  eats  not. 

The  garments  of  his  body  he  changes  not.  White 
robes  he  puts  not  on.  Sacrifice  he  offers  not.  The 
king  (in)  his  chariot  rides  not. 

In  royal  fashion  he  legislates  not.  A  place  of  gar- 
rison the  general  (by  word  of)  mouth  appoints  not. 
Medicine  for  his  sickness  of  body  he  applies  not. 

To  make  a  sacred  spot  it  is  suitable.  In  the  night 
in  the  presence  of  Merodacli  and  Istar,  the  king  his 
offering  makes.     Sacrifice  he  offers. 

liaising  his  hand,  the  high  place  of  the  god  he  wor- 
ships."^ 

That  this  is  not  merely  for  the  seventh  day  of  the 
month,  without  any  weekly  significance,  is  manifest 
from  the  fact  that  nearly  the  same  language  is  used 
in  these  memoranda  for  the  fourteenth,  the  twenty- 
first,  and  the  twenty-eighth  days.     And  nothing  like 

^  Transactions  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology,  Vol, 
V.  Part  ii.  pp.  427,  428. 

2  Records  of  the  Past,  Vol.  vii.  pp.  160,  161. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  H I  ST  OR  Y  OF  THE  SA  BBA  TH.        29 

it  is  used  for  any  other  of  the  thirty  days  except  the 
nineteenth  which  seems  to  have  been  another  sacred 
day,  like  the  day  of  atonement  in  the  Hebrew  Calen- 
dar. Mr.  Sayce  says  the  month  was  divided  into  two 
lunations,  each  of  "  three  periods  of  five  days,  the 
nineteenth  ending  the  first  period  of  the  second  luna- 
tion." '  Being  thus  a  limit  day,  it  was  sacred.  Mr. 
Sayce  further  says  of  this  calendar:  "  But  the  chief 
interest  attaching  to  it  is  due  to  the  fact  that  it  bears 
evidence  to  the  existence  of  a  seventh' day  Sabbath, 
on  which  certain  works  were  forbidden  to  be  done, 
among  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians.  It  will  be 
observed  that  several  of  the  regulations  laid  down  are 
closely  analagous  to  the  sabbatical  injunctions  of  the 
Levitical  law  and  the  practice  of  the  Rabbinical  Jews. 
What  I  have  rendered  "sabbath"  is  expressed  by 
two  Accadian  words,  which  literally  signify  "  dies 
nefastus,"  and  a  bilingual  syllabary  makes  them 
equivalent  to  the  Assyrian  yum  sulumi  or  "day  of 
completion  (of  labors),  or  a  day  unlawful  (to  work 
upon)."  The  word  Sabbath  itself  was  not  unknown 
to  the  Assyrians,  and  occurs  under  the  form  sabattu 
in  W.  A.  I.,  II.  32,  16,  where  it  is  exjolained  as  a  day 
of  rest  for  the  heart."  Sabattu  is  also  explained  to 
mean  "  complete  "  in  W.  A.  I.,  II.  25,  14.  The  cal- 
endar is  written  in  Assyrian.  The  occurrence,  how- 
ever, of  numerous  Accadian  expressions  and  technical 
terms  shows  that  it  was  of  Accadian,  and  therefore 
non* Semitic  origin,  though  borrowed  by  the  Semites, 
along  with  the  rest  of  the  old  Turanian  theology  and 
science.  The  original  text  must  accordingly  have 
been  inscribed  at  some  period  anterior  to  the  seven- 

^Ibid.,  Vol.  i.  pp.  164,  165. 


so  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

teenth  century,  e.  c,  when  the  ''  Accaclian  language 
seems  to  have  become  extinct."  ^  An  American  As- 
syrian scholar,  Rev.  Selah  Merrill,  D.D.,  also  affirms 
that  the  Accadian  language  became  extinct  at  least 
seventeen  centuries  before  Christ,  except  as  some  of 
its  words  were  brought  into  the  Assyrian.  These 
cuneiform  inscriptions,  therefore,  seem  to  give  posi- 
tive evidence,  that  the  "  Sabbath  "  existed  at  least  two 
centuries  prior  to  the  giving  of  the  decalogue  on 
Sinai,  and  that,  as  Talbot  says,  "  the  origin  of  the  Sab- 
bath was  coeval  with  creation."  Therefore,  having 
the  whole  evidence  in  view,  the  modern,  frequent 
statement,  that  it '  is  unwarrantable  to  infer  that  the 
Sabbath  was  instituted  at  the  beginning,'  ^  we  claim  is 
unfounded, 

8.  The  fourth  commandment  in  itself  indicates 
the  probability  that  God  had  made  the  seventh  day 
sacred,  and  given  it  to  man  as  such,  long  before  he 
gave  the  decalogue.  The  injunction  to  "  remember  " 
the  day  naturally  implies  that  it  was  previously 
known.  Remembrance  ordinarily  signifies  retrospec- 
tion as  well  as  prospection.  It  here  implies  retrospec- 
tion; for  the  Sabbath  was  known  at  the  giving  of 
manna,  even  if  not  at  creation.  The  command  to  re- 
member is  based  on  three  reasons:  God  rested  from 
his  work,  he  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  he  hal- 
lowed it.  The  past  tense  of  the  verb  is  used;  each 
reason  was  an  act  of  the  past.  The  first  one,  God 
rested,  we  know  dates  at  the  close  of  creation.  Were 
there  two  thousand  and  five  hundred  years  between 

1  Records  of  the  Past,  Vol.  vii.  pp.  157,  158,  and  2d.  note  p.  160. 
^  The   Social   Law   of   God,  Sermons   on   the  Ten  Command- 
ments, by  E.  A.  Washburn,  D.D.,  p.  73. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  HISTORY  OF  THE  SABBA  TH.        31 

that  and  the  date  of  the  other  two  reasons?  Impro- 
bable. If  they  all  dated  at  the  beginning  of  God's 
rest,  then  the  seventh  day  was  made  sacred  at  that 
time;  whether  or  not  then  made  known  to  man.  Yet 
was  it  not  made  known  when  made  sacred? 

If  God's  act  of  blessing  and  hallowing  the  seventh 
day  occurred  on  the  Mount  while  he  wrote  the  deca- 
logue, we  should  not  have  had  the  Hebrew  perfect 
tense,  but  the  imperfect,  or  participle,  which  in  this 
case  would  be  nearly  equivalent  to  the  English  pres- 
ent: remember  the  Sabbath=day,  for  God  rested  on  it, 
and  blesses  and  halloics  it. 

The  three  reasons  in  the  commandment  for  observ- 
ing the  Sabbath-day  being  the  same  as  the  three  for 
the  appointment  of  the  seventh  day,  as  stated  in  the 
narrative  of  the  creation,  is  aifother  fact  that  appar- 
ently dates  the  sacred  day  at  the  beginning  of  God's 
rest.  The  language  in  Malachi,  "  Kemember  the  law 
of  Moses  "  (Mai.  iv.  4),  naturally  means  not  merely 
bear  that  law  in  mind  in  the  future,  but  remember  the 
law  given  through  Moses  heretofore ;  and,  in  like  man- 
ner, the  fourth  command  rationally  means,  remember 
the  Sabbath  day  given  heretofore. 

The  command  to  remember  has  especial  signifi- 
cance, because  at  that  age  so  much  of  history  and  of 
knowledge  of  God's  works  and  commands  depended 
upon  human  memory.  The  book  of  Genesis  did  not 
exist  to  preserve  the  sacred  narratives  until  Moses' 
hand  could  write  it;  though  he  doubtless  embraced 
in  it  some  accounts  previously  written  by  inspired 
men.  By  the  usual  chronology  Adam  could  tell  Me- 
thuselah of  the  sacred  seventh  day;  Methuselah, 
Shem;  Shem,  Abraham;  Abraham,  Isaac;  Isaac,  Jo- 


32  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY    ■ 

seph;  Joseph,  Amram;  Amram,  his  sons,  Aaron  and 
Moses.     Memory  had  a  high  office. 

It  being  a  legal  axiom  that  a  law  continues  while 
its  reason  continues,  it  follows  that  under  a  wise 
ruler  the  law  is  in  force  as  soon  as  the  reasons  for  it 
exist.  One  of  the  three  reasons,  and  doubtless  all, 
for  the  appointment  of  the  Sabbath,  began  at  the 
close  of  the  creation.  Should  not  this  increase  the 
probabilities  nearly  into  assurance,  that  the  seventh 
was  given  to  man  as  a  sacred  day  at  his  origin? 


CHAPTER  III. 

CHRIST  DID  NOT  ABOLISH  OR  MODIFY  THE  SABBATH. 

The  decalogue  had  an  ascendency  over  the  other 
enactments  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  was  confirmed 
without  rejDeal  by  Christ,  in  his  own  person  and 
through  his  apostles.  Its  original  superiority  is  evi- 
dent from  its  having  been  written  by  Jehovah  him- 
self on  the  two  tables  of  the  covenant,  made  especial- 
ly for  them,  and  kept  in  the  holy  of  holies.  No  part 
of  that  law  can  be  abolished,  except  by  the  enacting 
authority. 

But  some  claim  that  this  decalogue  was  abolished 
by  Christ,  through  himself  and  his  disciples.  Dr. 
Thomas  Arnold  si)eaks  cautiously:  "If  the  law  itself 
be  done  away  in  Christ."  *  Dr.  E.  W.  Dale  says: 
"The  Jewish  revelation  has  become  obsolete."  ^  Dr. 
George  B.  Bacon  says:  "  When  I  say  that  Christian- 
ity superseded  the  Jewish  law,  I  mean,  just  as  Paul 
meant,  that  it  sui^erseded  the  whole  of  the  Jewish 
law."  ^  And  many  suppose  that  Christ  himself  began 
to  disregard  and  violate  the  Sabbath.  Dr.  Heylin,  in 
the  seventeenth  century,  said  that  Christ  abated  the 
estimation  which  the  people  had  of  the  Sabbath,  pre- 
paratory for  the  abrogation  of  the  day.*     Theodore 

^  Works,  Vol.  iii.  p.  257,  Sermon  xxii.  The  Lord's  Day. 

2  Ten  Commandments  (Fourth),  p.  93. 

^  Sabbath  Question,  p.  101. 

*Hist.  Sab.,  fol.  p.  401,  Part  ii.  c.  1.  §  2. 

33  2 


34  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Parker  said,  on  this  question,  "  Paul  rejects  the  author- 
ity of  the  Old  Testament."  ^  Reply :  When  Christ  was 
requested  to  tell  the  greatest  commandment  of  the 
law,  he  gave  a  summary  of  the  first  four  as  our  duty  to 
God,  and  of  the  last  six  as  our  duty  to  man.  He 
added:  "On  these  two  commandments  hang  all  the 
law  and  the  prophets"  (Matt.  xxii.  35-40).  He  made 
no  exception  of  the  fourth  commandment;  he  there- 
fore sustained  that  and  the  whole  ten.  In  that.day 
no  question  had  been  raised  about  the  abrogation  of 
the  fourth  commandment  or  the  Sabbath.  He  said  to 
another:  "Keep  the  commandments."  When  asked, 
"Which?"  he  specified  the  last  six;  the  direction  to 
the  inquirer  to  sell  his  possessions  having  pertained 
to  the  tenth  (Matt.  xix.  16-22).  By  not  naming  the 
first  three  he  did  not  reject  them,  nor  the  fourth  by 
not  naming  it.  He  convicted  the  young  man  by  the 
second  table  of  the  law;  much  more  was  he  a  sinner 
by  the  first.  Christ  testified  that  he  came  not  to  de- 
stroy the  law;  therefore  the  Sabbatic  part  of  it  he  did 
not  abolish.  He  said:  "  Till  heaven  and  earth 
pass,  one  jot  or  one-  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from 
the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled"  (Matt.  v.  18).  The  sac- 
rificial and  otherwise  ceremonial  law  was  fulfilled 
when  Christ's  propitiatory  work  was  complete;  but 
the  chief  elements  of  the  sacred  day  did  not  pertain 
to  that  law,  and  no  proof  exists  that  their  office  has 
been  fulfilled. 

Dr.  Washington  Gladden  says  this:  "One  of  the 
ten  commandments  was,  as  it  seems  to  me,  distinctly 
repealed  by  our  Lord."^     He  is  understood  to  refer 

^  Christian  Use  of  Sunday,  p.  18. 
2  Church  and  Kingdom,  p.  51. 


CHRIST  DID  NOT  ABOLISH  THE  SABBATH  35 

to  the  fourth  commandment,  but  he  does  not  prove  or 
profess  to  prove  the  statement,  yet  such  claims  of  re- 
peal are  hazardous  for  souls  and  sociology.  Their 
efPect  with  some  is  to  undermine  the  authority  of  the 
Scriptures. 

Jesus,  instead  of  annulling  the  Sabbath,  explained 
and  enforced  its  observance,  and  purified  it  from  rab- 
binical abuses.  His  justification  of  his  disciples  in 
plucking  ears  of  corn  on  the  Sabbath  for  their  pres- 
ent need  was  t)n  the  ground  of  special  necessity,  like 
that  of  saving  life  or  relieving  suffering  (Matt.  xii.  1- 
18;  Mark  ii.  23-28;  iii.  2-6;  Luke  vi.  1-10;  xiii  11-17; 
xiv.  1-G).  Thus  was  David  justified  in  relieving  his 
hunger  hy  means  not  otherwise  allowable  (1  Sam.  xxi. 
1-6).  But  F.  W.  Robertson  repeatedly  implies  that 
the  fourth  commandment — "In  it  thou  shalt  not  do 
any  work"  (Ex.  xx.  10)  forbids  doing  even  religious 
or  necessary  work.^  Reply:  Such  cannot  have  been 
the  meaning;  for  God  required  Joshua,  with  priests 
and  armed  men,  to  march  around  Jericho  on  the  Sab- 
bath (Josh,  vi.);  and  the  double  sacrifices  (Num. 
xxviii,  9,  10)  and  new  baked  shew=bread  (Lev.  xxiv. 
5-8;  1  Chron.  ix.  32),  which  the  Lord  appointed  for 
the  Sabbath,  required  ^  large  amount  of  labor,  yet  it 
was  not  profanation  of  the  day.  The  Sabbatic  law 
forbade  the  ordinary  secular  work  in  order  to  promote 
rest  and  worship.  Pharisaic  dogmas  added  the  x^ro- 
hibition  of  works  of  necessity  and  mercy;  but  Christ 
allowed  them,  and,  by  the  case  of  David  eating  shew= 
bread,  and  that  of  the  priests  performing  labor  in  the 
Temple  on  the  Sabbath  (Matt.  xii.  5,  6),  he  showed 

'  Sermons  (First  Series),  Shad,  and  Sub.  Sab.  Law,  pp.  116, 
118,  120. 


36  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

that  his  course  was  not  inconsonant  with  the  law  of 
the  KSabbath.  And  it  is  not  shown  that  Christ  ever  al- 
lowed  anything  which  the  law  denied. 

Jesus  taught  the  application  and  adaptation  of  the 
Sabbath  to  the  race,  by  saying  that  it  "  was  made  for 
man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath"  (Mark  ii.  27). 
Dr.  R.  W.  Dale  and  others  object  that  he  did  not 
mean  that  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  in  distinc- 
tion from  the  Jews,  but  for  the  Jewish  man.^  We 
reply:  The  first  truth  in  this  language  of  Christ  is, 
man  was  not  made  for  institutions  and  ordinances, 
but  these — including  the  Sabbath — for  man.  An  im- 
plied truth  is,  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  mankind. 
''The  Son  of  Man  is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath" 
(Mark  ii.  28).  As  Son  of  Man,  he  belonged  to  the 
7'ace,  though  he  came  first  to  the  house  of  Israel.  So 
the  Sabbath  made  for  man  was  designed  for  the  race 
of  men,  though  for  the  Jews  it  was  especially  the 
seal  of  the  covenant.  The  elements  of  the  Sabbath 
are  chiefly  of  a  moral  nature,  such  as  rest,  physical 
and  spiritual,  worship,  and  time  to  be  kept  holy.  It 
cannot  be  found  that  G  od  has  ever  laid  moral  duties 
upon  one  nation  or  portion  of  mankind,  without  mak- 
ing the  same  binding  ui^en  all  others  where  they  were 
known  and  coald  be  practiced.  Moral  duties  are  uni- 
versal and  permanent.  Therefore,  when  Christ  said 
the  Sabbath  was  "made  for  man,"  he  did  not  mean  it 
was  for  Jeivs  merely,  but  for  all  men.  He  gave  no 
indication  that  he  was  defining  the  manner  in  v/hich 
Jews  only  should  keep  the  Sabbath,  nor  that  he  inten- 
ded to  have  it  abolished  under  the  new  dispensation.^ 

^  Ten  Commandments,  by  Dale,  p.  92. 

2  Dr.  J.  S.  Stone,  in  The  Eclectic,  Vol.  iv.  p.  554. 


CHRIST  DID  NOT  ABOLISH  THE  SABBATH  37 

Dr.  Dale  gives  no  definite  reason  for  his  opinion 
that  Christ  referred  merely  to  the  Jews,  as  having 
the  Sabbath  made  for  them.  But  Dr.  S.  M.  Hop- 
kins says  specifically:  "What  Jesus  said  was  not 
that  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man  or  humanity  at 
large,  but  for  the  man  {ton  anthropon);  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  for  Jewish  man;  just  as  we  should  say  that 
the  constitution  was  made  for  the  people  (the  Ameri- 
can people),  and  not  the  people  for  the  constitution. 
The  failure  of  our  translators  to  appreciate  the  force 
of  the  Greek  article  in  this  passage  has  largely  con- 
tributed to  mistaken  views  as  to  the  universal  and 
permanent  obligations  of  the  fourth  commandment — 
an  error  which  will  undoubtedly  be  rectified  in  the 
new  revision."  ^  The  revision  shows  no  change. 
Alford,  one  of  the  revision  committee  until  his  death, 
translates  it,  "For  the  sake  of  man,"  without  the 
article,  meaning  the  generic  man.  Winer  says:  "To 
be  particularly  noticed,  further,  is  the  use  of  a  sin- 
gular with  the  article  to  express  in  the  person  of  a 
definite  individual  a  whole  class;  as  when  we  say, 
The  soldier  must  be  trained  to  arms."  He  gives  as  an 
example  Matt.  xii.  35:  o  ctyaOo^  a'^dpco-ix^  .  .  .  h.^nlUi 
ayo.Od,  "  A  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasure  of  the 
heart  bringeth  forth  good  things."^  As  we  under- 
stand Professor  Hopkins'  rule,  this  must  be  a  Jewish 
good  man;  according  to  Winer,  and  to  reason,  we 
think,  it  is  any  good  man;  the  "definite  individual** 
is  taken  for  a  "  whole  class."  In  this  instance,  and 
in  the  case  of  the  Sabbath  made  for  man  (Mark,  ii, 
27),  the  Saviour  is  addressing  unbelieving  Pharisees; 

1  Address  at  Pittsburgh,  before  the  Evangelical  Alliance. 
2 New  Testament  Grammar  (Am.  ed.),  p.  106. 


38  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

yet  in  neither  case  does  he  say  anything  limiting  his 
application  to  the  Jews,  nor  anything  more  appropri- 
ate or  needful  to  them  than  to  other  men.  Dr.  Rob- 
inson says  the  article  is  also  used  "  in  the  singular 
when  the  noun  expresses  a  generic  idea,  or  stands  as 
the  representative  of  a  class,  where  in  English,  also, 
we  commonly  put  //^e."  ^  He  cites,  as  one  example, 
the  passage  Winer  does  (Matt,  xii,  35),  where  he 
would  translate,  as  Alford  does,  "  the  good  man," 
representing  a  class,  the  generic  good  man.  Dr. 
Robinson  speaks  again  of  the  Greek  usage,  "  where 
the  singular,  6  hdp(i)-o^^  the  man,  is  used  in  a  collect- 
ive or  generic  sense,  either  for  all  mankind  or  for  a 
particular  class  of  men,"^  and  cites  Matt.  iv.  4:  "Man 
shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,"  o  avOpwru)^,  the  man, 
man  used  generically,  though  preceded  by  the  defi- 
nite singular.  But  as  we  understand  the  rule  of  Dr. 
Hopkins  and  others,  it  must  be  merely  the  Jewish 
man.  Pray,  then,  what  is  there  in  Scripture  that  is 
applicable  to  us  Gentiles?  Professor  Hadley  gives  a 
class  where  the  noun,  though  preceded  by  the  defi- 
nite article,  is  used  generically,  and  gives  as  his  ex- 
ample, o  avdpuj7TO(^  dvfjTo^  iffTi,  man  is  mortal;  the  man; 
yet  he  says:  "  Man  as  such,  comprehending  every  one 
of  the  species,"^  not  merely  all  of  one  nationality, 
or  a  definite  individual.  Professor  A.  C.  Kendrick, 
on  the  particular  passage  in  question  (Mark  ii.  27), 
says,  "Had  it  been  d^^dpcoTto),  it  must  have  been  for  a 
man,  spoken  of  indefinitely,  whoever  he  might  be, 
where  av^/>£u-cu  was  used  loosely  for  toj  dydpw-co.     The 

*  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  490,  col.  2. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  56,  col.  2. 

3  Greek  Grammar,  §  526  b. 


CHRIST  DID  NOT  ABOLISH  THE  SABBATH  39 

latter,  r6  a^^opch-oj,  may  mean  equally  well  'the  man,' 
i,  c,  the  man  referred  to  in  the  particular  case,  or 
'for  man'  collectively  and  generically,  the  genus 
homo,  which  the  Greek  language  has  no  other  way 
of  properly  designating.  That  the  latter  is  meant 
here,  I  should  not  think  there  is  a  moment's  ground 
for  doubting.  Otherwise,  it  can  here  (Mark  ii.  27) 
have  no  proper  reference  whatever."  ^  Professor 
Hopkins  illustrates:  "The  Jewish  Sabbath  for  the 
Jewish  man,  just  as  we  should  say  that  the  con- 
stitution was  made  for  the  people  (the  American  peo- 
ple)." Rcphj:  1.  If  Christ  had  said  "the  Jewish 
man,"  as  Dr.  Ho]3kins  says,  "  the  American  people," 
it  would  have  been  a  parallel  case;  but  as  the  fact  is. 
it  is  not.  The  simple  phrase,  "  The  constitution  was 
made  for  the  people,"  unexi^lained  by  word,  allusion, 
or  implication,  would  mean  for  all  people;  as  God's 
"constitution"  of  natural  rights,  life,  liberty,  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness  is  for  all  people.  2.  If  Christ 
intended  the  truths  of  his  gospel  to  be  only  for  the 
Jews,  then  it  might  be  that  the  Sabbath  was  made 
merely  for  them.  But  he  says:  "Preach  the  gospel 
to  every  creature."  And  under  the  old  dispensation 
he  desired  to  have  the  whole  world  made  proselytes 
to  the  Jewish  faith,  as  the  Rechabites  were — to  that 
of  the  Sabbath  with  the  rest.  He  made  special  prom- 
ises to  the  strangers  that  should  come  and  keep  his 
"  Sabbaths"  (Isa.  Ivi.  3-8).  3.  If  Gentiles  were  not 
men,  then  the  Sabbaths  were  not  for  them. 

Finally,  a  class  of  writers  have  for  a  long  time 
been  saying  that  Christ  did  not  teach  that  the  Sab- 
bath was  for  mankind  in  general,  but  that  in  saying 

^Private  correspondence. 


40  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

that  it  "  was  made  for  man,"  he  said  only  that  it  was 
made  for  the  Jews.  The  only  reason  we  have  found 
for  such  doctrine  is  that  so  clearly  stated  by  Dr. 
Hopkins,  which  we  have  now  considered,  and  which 
we  conclude  has  no  real  foundation. 

Returning  to  Christ's  instructions,  when  he  inquir- 
ed of  the  Pharisees:  ''  Is  it  lawful  to  do  good  on  the 
Sabbath  days,  or  to  do  evil"  (Mark  iii.  4)  ?  "Is  it 
laivful  to  heal  on  the  Sabbath  day  "  (Luke  xiv.  3)  ? 
and  when  he  affirmed,  "  It  is  lawful  to  do  well  on 
the  Sabbath  days"  (Matt.  xii.  12),  he  each  time  im- 
plied, and  intended  to  be  understood,  that  he  fully 
regarded  the  Scripture  laws  pertaining  to  the  Sab- 
bath, though  he  disregarded  the  rabbinical  perver- 
sions of  them.  The  Great  Teacher  corrected  the 
abuses  of  both  the  Sabbath  and  marriage,  but  never 
those  concerning  circumcision,  or  any  other  institu- 
tion not  designed  for  all  men  and  all  time. 

Objection :  Christ  attended  a  feast  on  the  Sabbath, 
thus  putting  dishonor  upon  it,  which  apparently  set 
it  aside  (Luke  xiv.  (1-25).  Reply:  This  is  not  in 
Scripture  called  "  a  feast,"  but  "eating  bread  "  (ver. 
1).  Probably  it  was  only  the  cold  lunch,  or  meal  at 
noon;  for  it  is  not  called  "  supper."  That  it  was  the 
mid^day  meal  is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  great 
multitudes  (ver.  25)  attended  Christ  as  he  seems  to 
have  been  going  from  the  Pharisee's  house;  this 
occurrence,  after  the  evening  meal,  it  being  so  late, 
would  be  improbable.  The  synagogue  services 
closed  about  noon,  the  sixth  hour.  Josephus  speaks 
of  an  assembly  being  dissolved  then,  "at  which  hour," 
he  says,  "  our  laws  require  us  to  go  to  dinner  on  Sab- 


CHRIST  DID  NOT  ABOLISH  THE  SABBATH  41 

bath  days.'"  Then,  probably,  one  of  Christ's  hear- 
ers, living  near  by,  invited  him  and  his  company  and 
some  of  his  own  Pharisee  friends,  to  his  house  for 
refreshment.  Jesus  and  his  apostles  numbered  thir- 
teen, and  at  such  a  time  the  number  at  the  meal  was 
naturally  doubled  or  quadrupled.  They  must  all  eat 
somewhere,  and  eating  together  did  not  make  it  a 
secular  occasion,  which  is  what  is  generally  meant  by 
our  term  "  feast."  The  Pharisees  were  '  watching 
him,'  especially  to  see  if  he  would  heal  on  the  Sab- 
bath the  man  present  who  had  the  "  dropsy  "  (ver.  1, 
2).  All  this  gives  a  religious,  rather  than  a  secular 
aspect  to  the  scene,  Bengel  says:  "There  was  no 
wedding  on  this  occasion."  What  Christ  says  of  a 
wedding  was  in  a  parable  uttered  then,  and  out  of 
courtesy  he  would  make  the  occasion  in  the  parable 
difiPerent  from  that  at  the  house  of  his  host.  So  far 
as  appears,  the  Saviour's  conversation  there  was 
wholly  religious,  and  nothing  of  hilarity  is  witnessed 
among  the  guests.  It  was  probably  not  an  expensive 
meal;  for  no  fire  was  allowed  for  the  cooking  of  food 
on  the  Sabbath  (Ex.   xxxv.   3).^     The   chief  rooms 

1  Life,  §  54. 

2  Professor  Fairbairn  argues  that  the  prohibition  of  fires  was 
only  temporary,  designed  for  wilderness  experience,  and  quotes 
Josephus  as  implying  that  in  his  day  only  the  Essenes  refused 
to  build  fires  on  the  Sabbath  (Typology,  Vol.  ii.  p.  143).  The 
quotation  is:  "They  are  stricter  than  any  other  of  the  Jews  in 
resting  from  their  labors  on  the  seventh  day;  for  they  not  only 
get  their  food  ready  the  day  before,  that  they  may  not  be  oblig- 
ed to  kindle  a  fire  on  that  day,  but  they  will  not  remove  any 
vessel  out  of  its  place,"  etc.  (Wars,  Bk.  ii.  c.  8).  Contrary  to 
Fairbairn's  inference,  the  passage  implies,  we  think,  that  other 
Jews  did  refuse  to  build  fires   on   the   Sabbath;  otherwise,   the 


42  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

that  some  selected  were  simply  the  more  conspicuous 
places  for  reclining  at  the  table.  No  evidence 
appears  that  Christ  disregarded  the  sacred  day  on 
this  occasion,  even  though  many  were  assembled 
together.  In  a  day  without  printing,  and  with  few 
manuscript  books,  there  was  more  need  of  social 
religious  communion,  even  on  the  Sabbath,  than 
now. 

The  "supper"  made  for  Jesus  at  Bethany  (John 
xii.  2)  was  evidently  not  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  He 
seems  to  have  come  from  Jericho  on  Friday,  to  have 
rested  during  the  Jewish  legal  Sabbath,  and  at  even- 
ing, after  its  close,  to  have  had  a  meal  with  his  usual 
company,  and  the  few  friends  at  the  house  of  their 
host.  Even  if  it  were  the  Sabbath,  nothing  appears 
which  was  improper  for  that  day,  nothing  like  a  sec- 
ular feast. 

The  great  feast  given  the  Saviour  by  his  disciple 
Levi — his  apostle  Matthew — (Luke  v.  29),  cannot  be 
claimed  to  have  been  on  the  Sabbath.  It  was  prob- 
ably on  Friday,  as  the  next  day  seems  to  have  been 
the  seventh. 

Many  say  that  when  Jesus  ate  bread  with  the 
Pharisee  on  the  Sabbath  (Luke  xiv.  1)  "the  meal 
must  have  been  a  costly  and  ceremonious  one,"  "  a 
splendid    entertainment."  ^     Much  against  it  is  the 

phrase  "  not  only "  would  not  have  been  inserted.  In  respect 
to  removing  vessels,  etc.,  the  Essenes  went  beyond  other  Jews. 
Philo  says:  "Moses,  in  many  places,  forbids  any  one  to  handle  a 
fire  on  the  Sabbath  day  "  (Yonge's  Translation,  Vol.  iii.  p.  120), 
which  shows  that  he  understood  the  prohibition  to  be  of  uni- 
versal application. 

2 See  Alford  and  Trench,  in  loc. 


CHRIST  DID  NOT  ABOLISH  THE  SABBATH  43 

fact  that  no  cooking  could  be  done,  or  fire  built,  on 
the  Sabbath.  Against  it  is  one  reason  for  no  cook- 
ing, "that  thy  man-servant  and  thy  maid^servant  may 
rest  as  well  as  thou."  (Deut.  v.  14).  Yet,  closing 
their  day  at  six  o'clock  in  the  evening,  they  could 
have  one  warm  meal  before  daylight  passed  by,  which, 
on  other  days  at  least,  was  their  chief  meal ;  though 
we,  with  the  same  rule  against  fires  on  Sunday,  could 
not  have  a  warm  meal  between  midnight  and  mid- 
night— commencing  and  closing  the  day,  as  we  do,  at 
that  hour. 

Objection  Second:  It  was  a  feast  that  Christ  attend- 
ed on  this  occasion,  because  "  the  Jews  used  to  give 
entertainments  on  the  Sabbath.  See  Nehemiah  viii. 
9-12;  Tobitii.  1."*  Reply:  The  day  in  this  passage 
in  Nehemiah  is  not  called  the  Sabbath,  but  "  holy 
unto  the  Lord  "  (ver.  9).  It  was  on  the  first  day  of 
the  seventh  month  (ver.  2).  That  was  the  time  of  the 
feast  of  trumpets.  And  though  in  Lev.  xxiii.  24,  25 
the  day  is  called  a  Sabbath — in  the  Revised  Version, 
a  solemn  rest — it  was  not  the  weekly  one;  it  was  not 
shahhcdh,  but  shahbathon,  merely  a  day  for  sabbatiz- 
ing,  a  sabbatical  day — one  on  which  "  no  servile  work 
should  be  done,"  but  not  one  on  which  "no  work" 
should  be  performed,  as  was  the  case  with  the  weekly 
Sabbath  and  the  day  of  atonement.  It  were  useless 
to  hold  that  the  feast  of  trumpets  always  came  on  the 
Sabbath.  The  varying  nature  of  the  Jewish  month 
forbids  it.  The  Mischna  implies  that  the  Sabbath  and 
that  feast  were  not  identical;  stating,  as  it  does,  that 
when  the  feast  of  trumpets  came  on  the  Sabbath  the 

^Alford  on  Luke  xiv.  1. 


44  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

trumpets  were  to  be  blowed  only  in  the  Temple,  and 
not  outside  of  it.^ 

The  passage  in  Tobit  (ii.  1)  to  which  Alford  refers 
does  contain  the  phrase,  "  There  was  a  good  dinner 
prepared  for  me";  but  the  same  verse  shows  that  the 
occasion  was  not  on  the  Sabbath,  but  "  day  of  Pente- 
cost." Alford  cites  also  Augustine;  but  the  passages,^ 
though  indicating  luxurious  ease  and  idleness,  do  not 
prove  expensive  feasts,  and,  besides,  they  pertain  to 
customs  in  Augustine's  time,  and  not  in  that  of 
Christ.  In  another  passage,  not  referred  to  by  Al- 
ford, Augustine  ^  speaks  of  reveling  and  drunkenness 
as  practised  by  the  Jews  "of  old";  but  he  doubtless 
refers  to  the  prophets'  day,  when  the  desecrated  Sab- 
baths were  an  abomination  to  God  (Isa.  i.  13).  Al- 
ford's  citations  utterly  fail  to  show  that  Christ  at- 
tended a  feast  on  the  Sabbath. 

Other  writers,  perhaps  by  following  Alford,  have 
fallen  into  his  error.  "Christ  attended  a  feast 
made  on  that  day  in  his  honor.  .  .  .  Jewish 
usage,  in  that  age,  justified  social  gatherings  on  the 
Sabbath,  and  Christ  by  his  practice  sanctioned  this 
usage,  while  by  his  words  he  never  rebuked  it;"* 
"  It  was  usual  for  the  rich  to  give  a  feast  on  that 
day;  and  our  Lord's  attendance  at  such  a  feast,"  etc.  ^ 

"It  was  customary  to  give  feasts  on  that  day,  and 
our  Savior  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  a  guest  at 

^  Surenhusius's  Mischna,  Parz  ii.  p.  344:,  Roch  Hash.  Caput 
iv.  (§  1).     Amsterdam,  1699. 

2 On  Ps.  xxxii.  2;  Ps.  xci.  2,  Latin  numbering. 

^Commentary  on  Matt.  xxiv.  20. 

*Dic.  Religious  Knowledge,  by  Lyman  Abbott  and  Prof.  T. 
J.  Conant,  p.  824.  Art.  "Sabbath." 

5  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  p.  2759. 


CHRIST  DID  NOT  ABOLISH  THE  SABBATH  45 

one."  '  "Nehemiah,  a  Jewish  reformer  of  the  strict- 
est principle,  gave  directions  for  eating  the  fat,  and 
drinking  the  sweet,  and  sending  portions  unto  them 
for  whom  nothing  is  prepared,  on  the  Sabbath,  after 
the  sermon"  (see  Neh.  viii.  8,  10).^  Reply:  This 
passage  in  Nehemiah  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  ob- 
servance of  the  Sabbath;  but  the  waiter  here  citing 
it,  and  writing  the  sentence  which  he  hopes  is 
proved  by  it,  does  cite  this  good  sentence  from  Paulus 
on  Luke  xiv.  1-24:  "  We  are  not  here  to  understand 
a  public  banquet."  To  sustain  the  charge  against 
the  Jews  of  holding  social  gatherings  and  giving 
feasts,  —by  which  is  meant  those  of  a  secular  char- 
acter,— we  find  adduced  such  passages  as  these:  2 
Chron.  xxix.,  which  does  not  speak  of  the  Sabbath  at 
all,  but  of  special  services  consequent  on  the  revival 
of  religion  in  the  beginning  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  and 
subsequent  to  the  cleansing  of  the  Temple;  and  Neh. 
viii.  9-13,  which  refers  to  the  feast  of  the  trumpets 
(Lev.  xxiii.  24,  25),  and  to  memorial  services  at  the 
completion  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  wall  around  Jer- 
usalem, and  Hosea  ii.  11,  which  threatens  divine 
judgments  by  taking  away  the  Sabbath.  But  all 
these  fail  to  sustain  the  foregoing  charge. 

The  error  is  frequent  of  ascribing  the  celebrations 
of  mere  feast^^days  to  the  sacred  Sabbath,  probably 
because  they  are  sometimes  called  "  Holy  unto  the 
Lord"  (Neh.  viii:  9).  And  even  the  mirth  (Neh. 
viii.  12)  of  feast=days  was  religious,  rather  than  secu- 

^  Kitto's  Bib.  Cyc.  (Alexander's  ed.,  third  and  enlarged),  p.  713. 

2  Questions  of  the  Day,  by  John  Hall,  D.  D.,  p.  201.  See  also 
Cox  on  "Sabbath  Laws  and  Sabbath  Duties,"  pp.  137,  436,  439; 
and  George  B.  Bacon,  D.  D.,  on  "The  Sabbath  Question,"  p.  74. 


46  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

lar.  Josephus  approvingly  quotes  Nicliolaus'  plea 
for  the  Jews  before  Agrippa,  in  which  he  says  of 
their  observance  of  the  seventh  day:  "It  is  dedi- 
cated to  the  learning  of  our  customs  and  laws;  we 
thinking  it  proper  to  reflect  on  them,  as  well  as  on 
any  [good]  thing  else,  in  order  to  our  avoiding  of  sin. 
If  any  one,  therefore,  examine  into  our  observances, 
he  will  find  that  they  are  good  in  themselves."^ 
Whiston,  learned  in  such  things,  corroborates  Jose- 
phus; and  both  give  a  historic  impression  utterly 
inconsistent  with  secular  feasts,  or  even  secular  vis- 
iting on  the  Sabbath  among  the  Jews  in  our  Savior's 
time.  The  fact  that  the  Pharisees  and  Essenes,  and 
perhaps  the  Sadducees,  of  that  age,  were  very  scrupu- 
lous and  superstitious  in  observing  the  Sabbath,  and 
put  much  merit  in  the  outward  acts  of  life,  is  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  theory  that  they  attended  secular 
feasts  or  even  social  gatherings  on  that  sacred  day. 
Philo,  contemporary  of  Josephus,  treating  of  Jewish 
laws  and  customs,  says:  "But  the  seventh  day  had 
an  especial  honor;  for  it  is  not  permitted  to  do  any- 
thing whatever  on  that  day";  and,  "It  was  invariably 
the  custom,  .  .  .  especially  on  the  seventh  day, 
.  .  .  to  discuss  matters  of  Philosophy,  .  .  . 
in  accordance  with  which  custom,  even  to  this  day, 
the  Jews  hold  philosophical  discussions  on  the  sev- 
enth day,  disputing  about  their  national  philosophy."^ 
The  learned  Selden,  after  quoting  various  Jewish 
authorities,  says:  "The  Jews,  therefore,  by  no  means 

^Antiq.,  Bk.  xvi.  c.  2.  §  4;  see  also  ibid.,  c.  vi.  §  12;  against 
Apion,  Bk.  i.  §22;  Wars,  Bk.  iv.  c.  9,  §  12. 

^Life  of  Moses,  i.  c.  36,  Yonge's  Translation,  Vol.  iii.  pp.  46, 
119. 


CHRIST  DID  NOT  ABOLISH  THE  SABBATH  47 

count  the  Sabbath  a  burden,  but  a  great  blessing; 
they  have  it  in  high  veneration,  and  affect  to  call  it 
their  spouse."^  Buxtorf  gives  similar  testimony.^ 
Philo  describes  the  "  feasts  "  of  "  Barbarians  and  Gre- 
cians," with  the  apparent  implication  that  Jewish 
feasts  were  free  from  all  excesses  and  perversions.  ^ 
We  therefore  conclude,  though  the  Jews  had  their 
chief  meal  on  the  Sabbath  near  mid-day,  instead  of 
at  evening,  as  on  other  days,  and  though  they  en- 
deavored to  make  the  occasion  cheerful,  and  set  their 
best  food  cold  upon  the  table,  and  gave  time  to  con- 
versation, and  frequently  to  short  discourses,  yet  that 
they  did  not  in  our  Saviour's  time  indulge  in  mere  so- 
cial visiting,  carnal  festivities,  or  secular  amusements 
during  the  Sabbath  hours.  We  also  conclude  that 
the  frequent  statement  in  modern  times  that  Christ 
was  on  the  Sabbath  a  guest  at  a  feast  made  in  his 
honor,  has  done  much  to  secularize  the  Lord's  day. 
Professor  Barrows,  D,  D.,  of  Oberlin,  whose  studies 
had  led  him  to  some  special  examination  of  this 
subject,  states  that  he  knows  of  no  evidence  that 
Christ  attended  a  feast,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the 
term,  on  the  Sabbath,  or  that  the  Jews  of  that  age 
were  accustomed  to  hold  sumptuous  entertainments 
on  that  day. 

'Selden  de  Jure  nat.  et  gent.  lib.  iii.  c.  10;  Oper.  Vol.  i.  pp. 
326,  327. 

^Buxtorf,  Synag,  Judaic,  c.  xv.  pp.  299,  300;  Edit.  Basil, 
1661. 

3  Vol.  i.  p.  198,  Cain  and  his  birth. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

DID  NOT  TEACH  OR  HOLD  THAT 
EITHER  THE  LAW  OR  THE  FOURTH  COMMANDMENT  IS 
ABOLISHED. 

The  last  chapter  we  closed  by  replying  to  some  ob- 
jections. They  were,  that  Christ  did  much  toward 
abolishing  the  Sabbath  of  the  decalogue  by  his  teach- 
ing and  by  his  sanction  of  Jewish  secular  festivities 
on  that  sacred  day.  Several  incorrect  statements, 
having  the  weight  of  objections,  have  been  made  by 
Jahn,^  Horne,^  Lightfoot,^  and  Wetstein.*  The  last 
three  of  these  writers  depend  on  Luke  xiv.  1  to  main- 
tain their  claim.  They  all  have  misapprehended 
such  passages  as  Ex.  xv.  20,  21;  2  Sam.  vi.  14;  Neh. 
viii.  9,  10.  We  have  already  sufficiently  replied  to 
these  objections.  We  may  add  a  few  words.  Jahn's 
editor,  Professor  Upham,  says  that  the  practices 
which  that  author  names  were  all  religious.  He 
should  have  added  that  none  of  his  Scripture  pas- 
sages necessarily  refer  to  the  Sabbath  at  all.  Home 
quotes  the  standard  text,  Luke  xiv.  1,  and  then  refers 
to  Lightfoot  and  Wetstein.     They  chiefly  rely  on  the 

^  Archaeology  (2d  ed.),  p.  443. 

2  Introduction,  Vol.  iii.  p.  292. 

3  Horae  Heb,  et  Talmud  (London,  1823,  p.  142,  Lev.  xiv.  1. 
*  On  Luke  xiv.  1. 

48 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  APOSTLES  49 

Mischna.  But  that  is  composed  much  of  traditions 
relative  to  Jewish  customs,  was  very  meagre  as  late 
as  the  close  of  the  second  century,  was  not  completed 
(the  Babylonian  one)  until  about  the  close  of  the 
fifth  century,  and  that  of  Jerusalem,  the  inferior  one, 
not  much  sooner,  if  as  soon.'  It  is  poor  authority  on 
which  to  convict  Jesus  Christ  of  attending  secular 
feasts  on  the  Sabbath  among  the  Jews,  when  its  date 
is  not  at  our  Saviour's  time,  and  the  Jews  had  so  much 
degenerated  in  national  customs  at  the  time  of  its 
date.  Some  of  the  practices  attributed  by  these  and 
other  writers  to  the  Jews  of  Christ's  day,  Philo,  con- 
temporary with  him,  denies,  at  least,  with  reference 
to  the  better  class  of  Jews.  Speaking  of  the  joy  the 
great  lawgiver  had  provided  in  the  Sabbath  for  the 
Hebrew  people,  and  of  their  abstaining  from  secular 
labor  and  business  on  that  day,  he  adds:  "But  not, 
as  many  do,  running  mad  after  the  theater,  the  mimes, 
and  dances,  but  philosophizing  in  the  highest  sense."  ^ 
2.  But  did  the  apostles  teach  that  the  fourth  com- 
mandment was  abrogated?  They  taught  the  binding 
nature  of  the  whole  moral  law,  without  excepting  that 
of  a  sacred  day  of  rest.  Paul,  in  one  instance,  names 
half  the  decalogue,  and  adds:  "  If  there  be  any  other 
commandment,  it  is  summed  up  in  this  word,  namely, 
Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself. 
Love  is  the  fufilling  of  the  law  "  (Rom.  xiii.  10).  He 
says  expressly:  "The  law  is  holy,  and  the  command- 
ment holy  and  righteous  and  good"  (Rom.  vii.  12); 

^Prof.  Samuel  Adler,  Johnson's  Encyclopaedia,   "  Talmnd  "  ; 
Rees'  and  Chambers'  Encyclopaedias  on  "  Talmud  and  Mischna." 

2  De  Moee,  iii.  p.  167,  quoted  by  Milman,  Hist.  Jews,  Vol.  i.  p. 
203,  note. 
3 


60  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

"  Do  we  then  make  of  none  effect  the  law  through 
faith?  God  forbid;  yea,  we  establish  the  law  "  (Rom 
iii.  31).  The  apostle  never  could  have  written  thus, 
if  one-tenth  of  the  decalogue — more  than  that  in  lan- 
guage a^fi  thought — were  repealed,  annulled,  as  F. 
W.  Robertson  and  others  say.^  Paul  could  not  have 
meant  that  the  sacred  seventh  of  time  was,  like  cir- 
cumcision and  sacrifice,  no  longer  needed,  nor  that 
all  days  should  be  equally  devoted  to  the  secular  and 
religious.  He  himself  still  observed  the  seventh,  and 
had  added  to  it  another  religious  day.  Near  the  time 
he  wrote  the  few  sentences  (Rom.  xiv.  5;  Gal.  iv.  10; 
Col.  ii.  16,  17)  which  some  think  imply  the  abolition 
of  the  Sabbatic  principle,  "  he  reasoned  in  the  syna- 
gogue every  Sabbath,  as  his  custom  was"  (Acts  xviii. 
4;  xvii.  2;  xvi.  13;  xiii.  14,  44);  and  on  each  Lord's 
day  where  he  tarried  he  met  with  the  disciples  foi 
worship  (Acts  XX.  7);  and  he,  or  some  other  sacred 
writer,  expressly  enjoined  on  others  to  do  likewise 
(Heb.  X.  25).  No  evidence  appears  that  he  kept  all 
days  alike,  or  that  he  grew  lax,  and  threw  off  the  re- 
straints of  holy  time.  If  the  Saviour  intended  to 
repeal  the  real  Sabbath,  why  do  we  not  find  him  or 
his  apostles  instructing  the  disciples  to  disregard  the 
fourth  commandment?  Why  not  find  him  or  them 
engaged  on  that  day  in  secular  labor,  or  diverting 
themselves  by  fishing?  Why  no  case  of  conflict  be- 
tween them  and  the  Pharisees  where  the  former  set 
aside  the  sabbatic  ordinances? 

3.     Do   the  following  apostolic   statements  imply 
that  the  law  is  abolished?     "Ye  are  not  under  law, 

*  Robertson's  Sermons,  Sydenham  Palace  and  Sabbath  (Sec 
ond  Series);  Shad,  and  Sub.  of  Sab.     (First  Series.) 


The  testimony  of  the  apostles  51 

but  under  grace"  (Rom.  vi.  15);  ''If  ye  are  led  by 
the  Spirit  ye  are  not  under  the  law"  (Gal.  v.  18); 
*'That  he  might  redeem  them  which  were  under  the 
law"  (Gal.  iv.  5);  ''Ye  also  were  made  dead  to  the 
law"  (Rom.  vii.  4);  "We  have  been  discharged  from 
the  law"  (Rom.  vii.  6);  "The  letter  killeth,  but  the 
Spirit  giveth  life"  (2  Cor.  iii.  6).  If  in  Christ  we 
are  not  condemned  by  the  law,  nor  in  danger  from  its 
penalty,  nor  bound  to  seek  justification  by  our  own 
righteousness,  nor  longer  burdened  by  ceremonial 
observances  of  the  old  dispensation;  still  love  con- 
strains to  obedience,  the  rule  of  the  moral  law  is 
sweet  to  us,  wherein  we  fail  of  obedience  we  obtain 
forgiveness,  and,  as  Augustine  says,  "The  law  itself, 
by  being  fullfilled,  becomes  grace  and  truth ";^  and 
hence  it  is  not  abolished. 

Objection :  "  The  law  written  and  engraven  in  stones, 
with  all  its  glory,  is  done  away."^  Reply:  Though 
the  preceding  sentence  is  from  the  pen  of  a  respected 
and  representative  author,  who  believed  it  founded 
on  Scripture,  yet  it  is  not  Scripture.  He  refers  to  2 
Cor.  iii.  7,  11.  Why,  and  of  what,  does  the  apostle 
speak?  Unquestionably,  he  had  been  charged  with 
boasting  (ver.  1)  on  account  of  some  statements  in 
his  former  epistle  (1  Cor.  v.  9;  xiv.  18;  xv.  10).  Re- 
plying, he  declares  his  joy  at  being  a  minister  of  the 
New  Testament  (ver.  6);  and  then,  conceding  much 
to  the  glory  of  the  "  ministration  of  death," — of  the 
letter  of  the  law, — he  exalts  far  above  it  the  glory  of 
the  "ministration  of  the  Spirit."  The  comparison  is 
between  the  two  ministrations,  not,  as  some  authors 

^  Manichaean  Heresy,  p.  321. 

2 Dr.  Geo.  B.  Bacon,  Sabbath  Question,  p.  133. 


62  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

suppose,  between  the  law  and  the  Spirit.  The  former 
ministration  was  characterized  by  a  law  "written  and 
engraven  on  stones"  (ver.  7),  and  given  through 
Moses  in  great  glory  (ver.  13);  but  that  ministration 
and  the  dispensation  lying  back  of  it  are  passed  away 
to  give  place  to  the  ministration  of  the  Spirit.  This 
is  not  teaching  that  the  law  is  abolished,  but  that  it 
and  its  dispensation  need  no  longer  be  relied  upon  as 
a  way  and  means  of  salvation.  Although  the  laws 
given  by  Jehovah  to  the  Jews  were  not  formally  di- 
vided into  kinds,  they  evidently  had  different  offices. 
First,  in  general,  they  offered  a  way  of  righteousness 
and  salvation  for  sinners.  With  such  meaning  the 
term  "law "is  often  employed  in  the  New  Testament. 
As  such  it  embraced  the  typical  and  ceremonial  part; 
and  more,  the  law  of  rectitude,  the  expression  of 
God's  will  relative  to  right  and  wrong  in  his  rational 
creatures.  While  the  whole  system  of  types,  and  the 
ceremonies  pertaining  thereto,  was  temporary,  the 
laws,  principles  and  rules  pertaining  to  the  moral 
state  and  conduct  are  permanent.  The  chief  duties 
required  in  the  decalogue  are,  in  general,  ever  re- 
quired. They  must  be,  since  God  is  ever  holy,  and 
moral  right  and  wrong  will  never  change  their  nature. 
A  ministration  and  its  glory  passing  away  is  one 
thing;  the  abolition  of  that  which  ministers  in  some 
particular  form  is  quite  another  thing.  The  law  and 
its  dispensation,  as  a  dependence  for  redemption  is 
void;  the  law,  so  far  as  it  is  the  divine  expression  con- 
cerning the  moral  state  and  conduct  of  men,  is  in 
force,  and  is  imperishable.  Certain  writers  tell  us 
that  the  "law  written  and  engraven  in  stone,  with  all 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  APOSTLES  53 

its  glory,  is  done  away  ";  ^  but  all  that  the  Scriptures 
tell  us  is  that  the  glory  of  Moses'  countenance  "  was 
to  be  done  away,"  and  that  the  glory  of  the  "minis- 
tration of  condemnation  ....  is  done  away." 
Meyer,  Stanley,  DeWette  and  Neander  say  that  the 
two  ministrations  in  this  passage  are  compared,  not 
the  two  religions  of  the  two  dispensations.  De  Wette 
( ill  loc. )  suggests  that  the  old  dispensation  lying  back 
of  the  ministration  shares  in  the  removal;  but  that  is 
not  the  law  as  a  guide  of  life,  but  the  dispensation  as 
a  reliance  for  life  eternal.  That  is  abolished,  because 
a  better  takes  its  place.  But  there  are  no  better  prin- 
ciples and  rules  of  duty  to  supersede  the  moral  pre- 
cepts of  the  decalogue;  hence  they  are  not  abolished. 
Objection  second:  The  following  three  passages 
indicate  the  abolition  of  the  entire  Sabbath,  with 
other  Jewish  festive  days,  at  the  close  of  the  old  dis- 
l^ensation:  ''One  man  csjeemeth  one  day  above  an- 
other; another  esteemeth  every  day  alike.  Let  each 
man  be  fully  assured  in  his  own  mind"  (Rom.  xiv. 
5);  ''Ye  observe  days  and  months  and  seasons  and 
years  "  (Gal.  iv  10);  "  Let  no  man  therefore,  judge 
you  .  .  .  in  respect  of  a  feast  day  or  new  moon, 
or  Sabbath  day  "  (Col.  ii.  16).  Rephj :  The  first  two 
of  these  passages  would  hardly  be  thought  to  refer  to 
the  weekly  Sabbath,  were  it  not  for  the  third.  Does 
that  refer  to  it?  The  word  Shcihbath — Sabbath  rarest, 
and  its  derivative  Shahbathon—a  keeping  of  the  Sab- 
bath, a  resting,  a  Sabbatism — are  ap^Dlied  to  five  differ- 
ent days  and  the  seventh  year.  The  days  are,  the 
weekly  Sabbath,  the  day  of  the  atonement  (Lev.  xxiii. 
32),  the  feast  of  trumpets  (Lev.  xxiii.  24),  and  the 

^  Bacon,  Sabbath  Qaestion,  p.  133. 


64  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

first  and  eighth  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles  (Lev.  xxiii. 
39).  One  Seventh- Day  Adventist  author  says  there 
were  "  seven  annual  Sabbaths,"  ^  besides  the  weekly 
one,  as  named  in  Lev.  xxiii.  His  error  is  in  reckon- 
ing the  first  and  seventh  days  of  unleavened  bread 
and  the  day  of  pentecost  as  Sabbaths,  which  the 
sacred  writer  does  not  term  such.  Yet  they  were 
days  of  holy  convocation,  and  this  twenty4hird  chap- 
ter of  Leviticus  is  a  catalogue  of  such  days. 

With  us  the  word  "  Sabbath  "  is  a  technical  name, 
not  always  suggesting  its  literal  meaning — a  solemn 
rest.  With  the  Jews,  accustomed  to  hear  the  Script- 
ures in  the  Hebrew,  the  literal  idea  was  more  promi- 
nent; and  Shahhafh  and  Shahhafhon  alike  brought  to 
their  minds  the  thought  of  rest.  Yet  the  weekly  Sab- 
bath and  that  of  the  atonement  had  a  designation  pe- 
culiar to  themselves.  In  the  fourth  commandment  it 
is,  "day  of  the  Sabbath"  and  "Sabbath  of  the  Lord." 
In  Lev.  xxiii.  3  it  is,  Shahhath  Shabhathon, — 7'est  of 
resting,  a  sabbath  of  rest;  and  the  same  phrase  oc- 
cures  with  reference  to  the  day  of  atonement  (Lev. 
xxiii.  32.)  But  in  the  case  of  the  feasts  of  trum- 
pets (Lev.  xxiii.  24.),  and  in  that  of  the  feast  of  tab- 
ernacles (Lev.  xxiii,  39)  only  the  word  Shabbathon — 
a  resting,  a  sabbatism — is  used.  The  Septuagint 
notes  this  distinction.  Another  difference  is  this:  In 
respect  to  the  weekly  Sabbath  and  the  day  of  atone- 
ment the  manner  of  command  is,  "  Ye  shall  do  no 
work  "  (Lev.  xxiii.  3,  28) ;  but  in  the  case  of  the  feast 
of  trumpets  and  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles  it  is,  "  Ye 
shall  d.o  no  servile  work"  (Lev.  xxiii.  25,26).  By 
the  former  jDhrase  all  kinds  of  labor  were  forbidden — 

^  W.  J.  Littlejohn,  The  Constitutional  Amendment:  p.  114. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  APOSTLES  55 

toil  with  the  hands  and  business,  trade;  by  the  latter, 
labor  with  the  hands  was  forbidden,  while  mere  busi- 
ness and  trade  were  allowed.  But  on  each  of  the 
whole  five  days  a  holy  convocation  was  enjoined,  and 
also  on  the  first  and  seventh  days  of  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread,  and  at  the  feast  of  pentecost  or  the 
harvest  (Lev.  xxiii.  21).  On  these  last  three  days, 
also,  servile  work  was  forbidden,  but  not  all  work.  It 
seems  certain  that  amid  all  these  days  of  rest  and 
convocation  the  apostle,  by  the  word  "  Sabbaths," — 
Sabbath,  R.  V. — rests,  at  least  embraced  the  weekly 
Sabbath.  It  came  so  much  more  frequently  than  the 
yearly  Sabbath  or  Sabbatisms,  and  seventh  year  Sab- 
bath, that  it  were  unreasonable  to  suppose  the  apostle 
by  the  term  "  Sabbaths "  excluded  it,  and  included 
them,  without  the  least  intimation  of  the  omission. 
He  would  be  more  likely  to  exclude  the  Sabbatisms 
than  the  full  Sabbaths,  which  were  the  one  weekly 
day,  and  the  one  yearly  day,  the  atonement.  The 
seventh  day  was  the  only  one  of  all  usually  called  the 
Sabbath;  the  others  had  other  names.  The  reasons 
are  much  stronger  for  supposing  the  apostle  meant, 
by  the  word  "  Sabbath,*'  the  weekly  days,  rather 
than  the  yearly  ones.  The  feast  days  are  never  called 
"  Sabbaths."  The  day  of  atonement  was  a  fast  day, 
not  feast  day. 

This  word  "  Sabbaths,"— C.  2.— in  Col.  ii.  16,  some 
suppose  to  be*  singular  in  meaning, — therefore  refer- 
ring to  the  weekly  Sabbath  only, — though  plural  in 
form,  in  Greek  owing  to  one  peculiar  ending  of  the 
singular,  which  finally  assumed  the  termination  of 
the  plural  without  its  meaning.  Possibly  adverse  to 
that  view  is  the  fact  that  in  a  similar  list  of  public 


56  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

occasions  (Gal.  iv.  10)  the  word  *'days"  occurs  in 
plural  form,  referring  to  sacred  festivals,  and  perhaps 
including  the  Sabbath.  In  the  list  in  Colossians 
there  is  a  descending  scale — yearly  festivals,  monthly 
ones,  weekly  ones.  This  scale  is  the  more  notice- 
able, because  in  Gal.  iv.  10,  pertaining  to  the  same 
subject,  there  is  an  ascending  scale  from  days  to 
years — the  same  scale  reversed. 

Assuming,  now,  that  the  apostle,  in  Col.  ii.  16, 
embraced  the  weekly  day  in  the  word  ^'  Sabbaths," 
or  Sabbath,  does  it  show  that  the  fourth  command- 
ment is  obsolete?  The  apostles  had  to  contend  with 
Jews  and  the  Judaizing  Christians.  Though  the 
latter  accepted  Christ,  and  kept  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  they  tenaciously  held  that  Christians  should 
continue  the  observance  of  some  Jewish  institutions, 
especially  the  seventh  day.  This  Judaism  was  a 
stumbling  to  the  Gentile  Christians,  and  the  cause 
of  much  discussion.  The  apostle's  direction  was: 
"  Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own 
mind"  (Rom.  xiv.  5)  in  respect  to  the  observance  of 
these  Jewish  days.  His  practice  was  indicated  by 
the  fact  that  he  circumcised  Timothy  (Acts  xvi.  3) 
to  facilitate  his  acceptance  with  the  Jews,  since  it 
was  the  young  disciple's  privilege  by  being  of  Jewish 
descent  on  his  mother's  side;  and  refused  to  circum- 
cise Titus  (Gal.  ii.  3-5),  because  he  was  a  Gentile, 
and  Christianity  did  not  require  it,  and  those  who 
deemed  it  obligatory  needed  correction.  The  apostle 
was  inspired  to  allow  non-essentials  to  the  Jewish, 
and  to  disallow  their  being  made  essentials  to  the 
Gentile,  Christians.  Among  these  non=essentials 
was     the    observance  of  the  annual  and   monthly 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  APOSTLES  57 

religious  feasts,  and  probably  of  the  seventh  day. 
Paul  was  taught  by  inspiration  that  circumcision  was 
no  longer  necessary,  and  probably  that  the  seventh 
day  was  no  longer  obligatory.  But  while  the  former 
was  purely  ceremonial  and  national,  the  latter  was 
not  wholly  ceremonial  or  national  or  judicial.  So  far 
as  it  was  Jewish,  positive,  it  was  set  aside;  as  moral, 
it  remained.  In  the  moral  were  rest,  hallowed  time, 
worship,  probably  a  day  for  worship*  and  holy  con- 
vocations (Lev.  xxiii.  3).  In  the  positive  were  the 
septenary  division,  the  seventh=day  obligation, 
memorial  of  deliverance  from  Egypt  (Gen.  xxxi.  16), 
and  the  Jewish  civil,  ceremonial,  and  judicial  rela- 
tions; the  last  involving  penalties  for  violation  of 
sabbatic  law.  One  evidence  that  the  decalogue  is 
moral,  and  was  designed  for  man,  is,  that  penalties 
are  not  annexed,  and  may  therefore  vary;  as  may  also 
some  specific  duties  not  named  in  the  decalogue 
itself.  Doubtless  the  apostle  was  ignorant  of  these 
analytical  distinctions;  enough  that  he  observed 
them,  even  if  blindly,  and  as  an  inspired  man  could 
say.  Christians  need  not  keep  the  seventh,  but  should 
keep  the  first  day,  and  on  it  observe  their  most 
sacred  religious  services.  But  if  Paul  rejected  the 
Sabbath  in  any  sense,  it  was  merely  the  specific  Jew- 
ish day,  without  embracing  the  moral  elements  of  the 

^Holy  convocation  requires  a  particular  time  or  day  for  the 
assembling;  and,  the  evils  of  making  only  half  of  Sunday 
religious,  and  the  remainder  secular,  as  by  the  Continental 
method,  seem  to  indicate  that  natural  as  well  as  revealed  re- 
ligion calls  for  a  whole,  and  not  a  mere  half  stated  day  for  holy 
rest  and  worship.  And  the  tendencies  of  true  worship  in  holy 
convocation  are  towards  the  sacred  observance  of  the  whole 
day. 


58  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

real  Sabbath:  for  he  was  contending  with  Jews  and 
Judaizing  Christians,  who  were  busy  with  the  super- 
ficial positive,  not  with  the  deep=laid  moral  and 
spiritual,  which  the  apostle  was  especially  observing 
in  the  Lord's  day. 

Objection  third:  Still,  according  to  the  apostle 
Paul,  ''  We  are  delivered  from  the  law,  that  being 
dead  wherein  we  were  held"  (Rom.  vii.  6);  and 
therefore  it  is  not  binding  upon  us.  For,  as  Arch- 
bishop Whately  says,  "  There  are  very  many  pass- 
ages relative  to  the  Mosaic  law  occurring  in  the  writ- 
ings of  the  apostle  Paul,  whose  most  obvious  and 
simple  interpretation,  at  least,  would  seem  to  imply 
the  entire  abolition  of  that  law  by  the  establishment 
of  the  gospel."^  Reply:  Bengel,  Alford,  Lange,  and 
Meyer  affirm,  and  Whately  admits,  that  the  phrase 
"  that  being  dead  wherein  we  were  held "  should 
read,  "  we  being  dead  to  that  law  wherein  we  were 
held."  The  law  is  not  dead,  or  abolished,  but  believ- 
ers are  dead  to  it.  Meyer  even  says:  "Paul  is  not 
discussing  the  abrogation  of  the  law,  but  the  fact 
that  the  Christian  as  such  is  no  longer  under  it."  ^ 
The  apostle  has  just  used  the  figure  of  the  marriage 
relation.  Believers  are  married  to  another,  even 
Christ,  and  not  to  the  law.  In  the  law,  with  all  its 
types,  ceremonies,  deeds,  is  not  their  hope;  but  it  is 
in  Christ  Jesus.  The  extent  of  the  apostle's  mean- 
ing in  saying,  "  We  have  been  discharged  from  the 
law,"  (Rom.  7:6)  "Ye  are  not  under  law  "  (Rom.  vi. 
14)  is  indicated  by  another  of  his  statements:  "  For 
I  testify  again  to  every  man  that  receiveth  circum- 
cision that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law  "  (Gal. 

*  Difficulties,  etc.,  p.  142.  ^Qq^^^  Rom.  vii,  1. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  APOSTLES  59 

V.  3).  He  must  conform  to  all  its  ceremonial  obser- 
vances, and  obey  all  its  moral  requirements.  No 
other  course  is  left  him,  if  he  insists  on  salvation  by- 
law. But  believers,  accepting  grace,  enjoy  the  Anti- 
type,— types  and  ceremonies  having  passed  away, — 
and  delight  in  forgiveness  for  all  violations  of  the 
moral  law.  Yet  the  law  in  its  moral  character  and 
requirements,  pointing  out  the  way  of  duty,  demand- 
ing holiness,  and  forbidding  sin,  is  unabolished  and 
unabolishable.  As  Dr.  Bushnell  says,  "  Plainly 
enough,  the  law  of  God  can  never  be  taken  away 
from  any  world  or  creature;  for  with  it,  in  close  com- 
pany, goes  abroad  all  the  conserving  principle,  moral 
and  physical,  in  which  God's  kingdom  stands."  ^ 

However,  admit  that  it  is  all  abolished.  What 
then?  Surely  the  apostles  ought  not  to  use  it;  we 
shall  not  find  them  using  it.  Alas  for  the  theory! 
After  Paul  wrote  his  Epistle  to  the  Komans,  in  which 
the  foregoing  passage  occurs  (Rom.vi.l4),  he  v/rites 
that  to  the  Ephesians,  in  which  he  actually  appeals 
to  this  abrogated  law:  "'Children,  obey  your  parents 
in  the  Lord;  for  this  is  right.  Honor  thy  father  and 
mother,  which  is  the  first  commandment  with  prom- 
ise; that  it  may  be  well  with  thee,  and  thou  mayest 
live  long  on  the  earth  '*  (Eph.  vi.  1-3).  He  does  not 
even  stumble  at  using  the  Jewish  promise  of  long 
life  in  Canaan;  the  priciple  in  it  makes  it  service- 
able, applicable.  Nor  does  he  hesitate  to  employ  this 
commandment  in  addressing  Gentile,  as  well  as  Jew- 
ish Christians.  The  fifth  commandment  and  the 
fourth  and  all  the  others  are  for  man  not  for  Jews  on- 
ly.    He  does  not  tell  us  that  the  law  is  abolished, 

'  Forgiveness  and  Law,  p.  119. 


60  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

that  he  refers  to  this  command  as  only  a  law  of  nat- 
ure; he  summons  it  as  embracing  the  authority  of 
Jehovah  descended  on  Mount  Sinai.  More,  in  the 
same  Epistle  where  we  are  told  that  "  we  have  been 
discharged  from  the  law"  (Rom.  vii.  6),  we  find  the 
apostle  subsequently  bringing  forward  the  law  itself, 
as  still  a  law  and  obligatory:  "He  that  loveth  his 
neighbor  hath  fulfilled  the  law";  hence  he  is  deliv- 
ered from  its  condemnation.  "  For  This,  thou  shalt 
not  commit  adultery;  Thou  shalt  not  kill;  Thou  shalt 
not  steal;  Thou  shalt  not  covet;  and  if  there  be  any 
other  commandment,  it  is  briefly  summed  up  in  this 
word,  namely,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself  " 
(Rom.  xiii,  8,  9).  He  speaks  of  the  second  table. 
Is  love  abolished?  Nay.  Then  all  that  which  is 
condensed  into  love  is  not  annulled.  The  apostle  is 
consistent  with  himself,  and  must  mean:  If  we  love, 
we  are  delivered  from  the  condemnation  of  the  law, 
because  now  obedient,  and  forgiven  for  past  disobedi- 
ence; delivered  from  the  ceremonies  and  deeds  of  the 
law  as  our  hope,  because  salvation  is  offered  on  the 
easier  condition  of  repentance  and  faith;  not  deliv- 
ered from  obligation  to  obey  any  of  the  law's  moral 
precepts,  yet  privileged  to  obey  them  all  by  the  one 
comprehensive  principle  of  love.  Nor  is  all  this 
merely  a  Pauline  peculiarity.  The  inspired  James, 
at  least  twelve  or  fifteen  years  after  the  death  of 
Christ,  when  the  new  dispensation  had  been  more 
than  fully  inaugurated  and  established,  appeals  ex- 
pressly to  the  decalogue  as  a  rule  of  duty,  in  an  ad- 
dress to  believers,  who  are  dead  to  the  law  as  a  means 
of  hope  and  merit:  "  If  ye  have  respect  of  persons, 
ye  commit  sin,  and  are  convinced  by  the  law  as  trans- 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  APOSTLES  61 

gressors.  For  whosoever  shall  keep  the  whole  law, 
and  3'et  stumble  in  one  point,  he  is  become  guilty  of 
all.  For  he  that  said.  Do  not  commit  adultery,  said 
also,  Do  not  kill.  Now,  if  thou  dost  not  commit  adul- 
tery, but  killest,  thou  art  become  a  transgressor  of  the 
law"  (ii.  9-11).  Definite  commands  are  referred  to, 
not  as  abolished,  but  as  though  in  force  as  much 
as  ever.  What  the  sovereign  God  hath  said  is  ap- 
pealed to — what  he  said  on  the  mount,  amid  thun- 
derings  and  lightnings,  and  the  noise  of  the  trumpet, 
and  the  mountain  smoking.  It  is  in  our  disx3ensa- 
tion,  as  it  were  in  our  time,  that  the  apostles  summon 
the  law  of  Sinai  to  their  aid  in  proclaiming  the  gos- 
pel; and  it  becomes  uninspired  men  not  to  say  any 
more  that  the  law  is  abolished.  If  apostles  of  Jesus 
Christ  may  remind  their  hearers  and  readers  of  the 
commandments  as  still  expressive  of  God's  will,  we 
need  not  recall  our  appeals  to  them,  nor  be  troubled 
by  the  many  assertions  in  our  time  that  the  decalogue 
and  all  the  Old  Testament  laws  are  abrogated. 

Moreover,  twenty-seven  years  after  Christ's  death, 
and  after  the  law  was  abolished  by  his  death — as  some 
say — the  apostle  Paul  pronounces  the  law  holy,  and 
"  the  commandment  holy  and  righteous  and  good " 
(Rom  vii.  12),  and  points  out  the  good  services  of 
the  law  in  making  him  know  his  sins  (vii.  7-11)  and 
in  making  others  know  their  sins  (vii.  5).  He  refers 
to  the  ten  commandments;  for,  by  way  of  illustration, 
he  names  one  of  them — that  of  covetousness  (vii.  7). 
Have  we  outgrown  the  good  services  of  the  law  ?  Yet 
all  this  the  apostle  says  just  after  declaring  that  be- 
lievers *'are  not  under  the  law"  (vi.  14),  "are  dis- 
charged from  the  law"  (vii.  6).     Only  one  conclu- 


62  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

sion  is  rationally  deducible:  They  who  are  risen  with 
Christ  are  not  under  the  law  as  their  ground  of  sal- 
vation; yet  are  not  delivered  from  the  law  as  an  in- 
structor in  the  evils  of  sin  and  the  fruits  of  righteous- 
ness. Further,  if  Christ  abolished  the  law,  how  did 
he  deliver  from  its  curse?  If  abolished,  it  had  no 
curse;  that,  too,  w^as  abolished.' 

Objection  fourth:  Dr.  Hopkins  says:  "Neither 
our  divine  Lord  nor  his  apostles  ever  recognized  the 
fourth  commandment  as  containing  a  law  for  Chris- 
tians."' 

Reply:  The  fourth  commandment  stood  by  pre- 
vious enactment.  It  did  not  need  recognition  in 
order  to  its  continuance.  The  question  is,  did  Christ 
or  his  apostles  ever  reject  it?  1.  The  apostles,  so 
far  as  w^e  learn,  did  not  reject  it.  Both  James  and 
Paul  directly  appeal  to  the  commandments;  not  nam- 
ing all  of  them  at  any  time,  not  rejecting  any,  not 
intimating  that  the  fourth  or  any  other  w^as  annulled. 
Had  it  been  annulled,  a  fact  so  striking  w^ould  have 
received  attention.  Paul's  indication  that  no  one 
might  imi)ose  upon  Christians  the  obligation  to  ob- 
serve the  seventh  day,  after  the  first  had  become  the 
Lord's  day  (Col.  ii.  16),  is  no  evidence  that  the  com- 
mandment had  become  void.  That  command,  anal- 
yzed, had  the  following  parts:  (1)  A  division  or  part 

^  After  we  had  given  the  manuscript  of  this  Article  to  the 
press,  we  found  that  the  honored  Rev.  Amos  A.  Phelps,  in  a  dis- 
cussion held  in  the  year  1840,  made  the  clear  distinction  that 
the  law  is  "done  away  as  a  means  of  justification,"  but  is  not 
done  away  "  as  a  rule  of  duty;"  and  he  is  original  in  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  has  applied  that  fundamental  analysis  to  this 
subject. — See  Phelps  on  the  Perpetuity  of  the  Sabbath,  p.  11. 

2  Sabbath  Question,  p.  11. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  APOSTLES  63 

of  six  days;  (2)  A  division  of  one  day  immediately 
following  the  division  of  six;  (3)  An  appointment 
for  all  secular  work  during  the  first  division;  (4)  An 
appointment  for  rest  and  holy  keeping  of  time  during 
the  second  division;  (5)  A  commemoration  of  God's 
creation  of  the  world  by  the  first  division,  and  of  his 
rest  by  the  second  division;  (6)  A  reckoning  of  time 
that  made  the  first  division  the  first  six  days,  and  the 
second  division  the  seventh  day.  The  apostles  never 
said  aught  to  set  aside  any  one  of  these  first  five  parts. 
Their  teaching  and  example  simply  affected  the  ele- 
ment of  time,  and  gave  an  additional  object  of  com- 
memoration— that  of  Christ's  resurrection.  They  did 
not  revoke  the  commemoration  of  God's  act  of  creation, 
nor  of  his  rest;  for  still  six  days  are  devoted  to  labor, 
and  one  to  rest.  They  put  the  original  commemora- 
tion in  the  background  by  placing  another  before  it. 
By  changing  the  reckoning  of  time  they  did  not  make 
void  the  original  commemoration ;  because,  with  such 
variation  of  time  as  the  daily  revolution  of  the  earth 
gives,  what  is  the  seventh  day  to  some  is  the  first  to 
others,  and  exact  identity  of  observance  would  be  im- 
possible, and  is  not  required.  Though  Paul  taught 
that  observance  of  the  seventh  day  was  optional  (Col. 
ii.  16),  he  and  the  other  apostles  taught,  by  word  and 
example,  the  duty  and  privilege  of  keeping  the  first 
day,  and  of  laboring  six  days;  and  therefore  in  re- 
spect to  its  chief  (the  first  four)  elements,  they  "rec- 
ognized the  fourth  commandment  as  containing  a  law 
for  Christians,"  and  did  not  teach  or  allow  the  doc- 
trine that  it  is  annulled.  Even  failure  to  enforce  the 
fourth  commandment  would  not  be  its  abolition. 
2.     If  they  were  Christians  who  followed  Christ 


64  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

during  his  earthly  ministry,  then  he  did  repeatedly 
"recognize  the  fourth  commandment  as  containing  a 
law  for  Christians."  Even  his  corrections  of  the 
abuses  of  the  Sabbath  were  indirect  recognitions  of  the 
validity  of  the  fourth  commandment.  Not  one  word 
did  he  ever  say  against  it. 

A  consideration  of  the  decalogue  has  led  us  into 
the  New  Testament  with  the  question:  Has  the  deca- 
logue or  fourth  commandment  been  abolished?  Re- 
turning to  the  Old  Testament,  we  should  note  the 
fact  that  the  primal  reasons  given  in  both  Genesis 
(ii.  1-3)  and  Exodus  (xx.  11)  for  observing  the  Sab- 
bath pertain  to  man,  and  not  specifically  to  Jews,  and 
that  they  agree  well  with  Christ's  declaration,  that  the 
Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sab- 
bath (Mark  ii.  27).  The  reasons,  God  rested,  and  he 
blessed  and  hallowed  the  Sabbath,  are  too  broad  and 
benevolent  to  be  confined  to  one  nation. 

Ohjedion:  "The  Sabbath  is  described  as  a  sign  be- 
tween God  and  the  people  of  Israel";  therefore,  it 
seems,  "the  observance  of  it  was  peculiar  to  that  peo- 
ple, and  designed  to  be  so"^  (Ex.  xxxi.  16,  17;  Ezek. 
XX.  12).  "That  rest  .  .  .  being  only  commemora- 
tive of  their  deliverance  from  Egyptian  servitude, 
was  not  moral  nor  perpetual."  ^  Reply:  Previous  to 
the  above  from  Dr.  Paley  and  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor, 
Dr.  Heylin  had  said  the  same  f  and  they  all  seem  to 
have  written  without  due  consideration.  The  Sab- 
bath may  have  been,  and  was,  an  especial  sign  of  one 
thing  to  the  Jews,  and  a  sign  of  other  things  for  all 

^  Dr.  Paley,  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy,  chap.  vii. 
2  Jeremy  Taylor,  Law  and  Conscience,  sec.  58. 
^History  of  the  Sabbath.  Part  i.  chap.  iv.  sec.  6. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  APOSTLES  65 

men.  The  former  does  not  exclude  the  latter.  The 
sign  described  in  Ex.  xxxi.  16,  17  is  consonant  with 
that  in  Ex.  xx.  11;  and  the  reasons  in  the  latter  in- 
stance show  that  it  was  for  man,  and  not  Jews  only. 
The  eTewish  nation  existed  as  such  long  before  the 
recognition  of  the  Sabbath  at  the  giving  of  manna  in 
the  wilderness.  Who  can  say  that  the  Sabbath  was 
not  a  w^eekly  sign  long  before,  against  all  nations  that 
serve  not  the  true  God?  No  doubt  the  Egyptians 
robbed  the  Jew^s  much  of  this  badge  of  their  conse- 
cration to  Jehovah.  Israel  desired  to  go  three  days' 
journey  into  the  wilderness  to  "  hold  a  feast  unto  the 
Lord"  (Ex.  X.  9).  May  not  the  feast  have  embraced 
a  Sabbath,  wdiich  was  one  of  "the  set  feasts  of  the 
Lord"  (Lev.  xxiii.  2,  3),  and  afterwards,  at  least,  was 
a  high  feast  day?  The  passover  was  an  emphatic 
sign  of  fJewish  nationality,  and  a  marked  memorial  of 
Israel's  dei3arture  from  Egypt  (Ex.  xii.  11,  27).  But 
the  law  of  the  passover,  being  Jewish  and  temporary, 
w^as  not  put  into  the  decalogue;  while  the  law  of  the 
Sabbath  was.  The  former  was  a  memorial  of  deliver- 
ance from  Egyptian  bondage;  the  latter  of  the  crea- 
tion. The  reason  of  the  former  was  limited;  that  of 
the  latter  was  world-wide.  The  Sabbatic  institution, 
in  its  whole  range,  seems  to  be  commemorative  of 
three  events:  First,  of  God's  rest,  and  the  close  of 
creation;  secondly,  of  God's  special  choice  and  ap- 
pointment of  the  Jews;  thirdly,  of  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion, and  the  completion  of  redemption.  The  Sabbath 
of  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness,  and  to  the  end  of  the 
old  dispensation,  may  not  have  been  the  exact  suc- 
cessor of  the  sacred  day  instituted  in  the  beginning, 
and  observed  by  the  patriarchs;  though  the  latter,  as 


66  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

well  as  the  former,  may  have  been  the  seventh  by  the 
current  reckoning  in  its  period.  The  weeks  and  days 
may  have  been  disarranged  during  the  Egyptian  bond- 
age, and  a  correction  or  redating  may  have  been  com- 
menced at  the  giving  of  manna  or  at  the  institution  of 
the  passover,  when  a  holy  convocation  was  appointed. 

Objection  Second:  Archbishop  Whatley  says: 
*'  The  very  law  itself  indicates,  on  the  face  of  it,  that 
the  whole  of  its  precepts  were  intended  for  the  Israel- 
ites exclusively."  *  Dr.  Thomas  Arnold  speaks  doubt- 
fully about  it;^  Dr.  R.  W.  Dale  implies  that  "the 
fourth  commandment  was  given  to  the  Jews"  only;^ 
Dr.  Geo.  B.  Bacon  says  the  Sabbath  commandment 
was  "  addressed  not  to  the  Christian  church,  but  to 
the  Jewish  church;"*  Bishop  Robert  Sanderson 
(born  A.  D.  1587)  said  "  that  no  part  of  the  law  deliv- 
ered by  Moses  to  the  Jews  doth  bind  Christians  under 
the  gospel  by  virtue  of  that  delivery — no,  not  the  ten 
commandments  themselves,  but  least  of  all  the  fourth, 
which  all  confess  to  be,  at  least  in  some  part,  ceremon- 
ial";^ and  Jeremy  Taylor  speaks  of  "laws  which 
were  to  separate  the  Jews  from  the  Gentiles.  "  ® 

Reply :  It  was  not  the  design  of  the  Jewish  laws,  or 
of  the  Sabbath  in  particular,  to  separate*  the  Gentiles 
from  the  Jews,  if  the  former  would  forsake  their  idol- 
atry, and  embrace  the  true  religion.  The  Sabbath 
being  made  for  man,  as  most  of  these  writers  admit, 
it  inevitably  follows  that  the  fourth  commandment, 

^  Difficulties  in  the  Writings  of  St.  Paul,  p.  147. 

2Sermons,  Vol.  iii.  No.  22,  pp.  255-258. 

^Ten  Commandments,  p.  93. 

*  Sabbath  Question,  p.  97. 

^Dr.  Hessey  on  Sunday,  p.  327. 

®  Christian  Law  and  Conscience,  sec.  44. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  APOSTLES  67 

which  gave  or  confirmed  the  Sabbath,  had  in  its  moral 
part  a  binding  force  upon  man.  We  prefer  what 
Tertuliian  says:  "For  why  should  God,  the  Founder 
of  the  Universe,  the  Governor  of  the  whole  world,  the 
Fashioner  of  humanity,  the  Sower  of  universal  na- 
tions, be  believed  to  have  given  a  law  through  Moses 
to  one  people,  and  not  be  said  to  have  assigned  it  to 
all  nations?  For,  unless  he  had  given  it  to  all,  by  no 
means  would  he  have  habitually  permitted  even  pros- 
elytes out  of  the  nations  to  have  access  to  it.  But — 
as  is  congruous  with  the  goodness  of  God  and  with 
his  equity  as  the  Fashioner  of  mankind — he  gave  to 
all  nations  the  self^same  law.  "  ^  Whether  the  Sab- 
bath be  for  us  or  not,  being  made  for  man.  at  the 
time  it  w^as  made  it  was  not  exclusively  for  Jews. 
Though  the  Decalogue  was  addressed  to  the  Israel- 
ites, that  does  not  prove  Whately's  claim  that  it  was 
"  intended  for  the  Israelites  exclusively."  The  teach- 
ing of  Christ  and  his  apostles  especially  indicates 
that  the  Jews  were  as  much  bound  to  give'the  moral 
law  to  the  world  as  Moses  was  to  Israel  from  the 
mount.  It  has  ever  been  God's  way  to  speak  unto 
one,  or  a  few%  that  they  might  communicate  to  the 
many.  Bishoj)  Sanderson  may  say  that  "  no  part  of 
the  law  delivered  by  Moses  to  the  Jews  doth  bind 
Christians  under  the  gospel  by  virtue  of  that  deliv- 
ery ";  but  the  inspired  Paul  and  James  reiterate  that 
law  as  though  binding  alike  on  Jews  and  Gentiles  as 
far  as  known  to  them,  as  though  obtaining  its  divine 
force  not  from  their  lips,  but  from  the  voice  of  Jeho- 
vah, sounding  in  sublime  peals  from  Sinai  across  the 
centuries. 

^  Ans.  to  the  Jews,  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xviii.  p.  203. 


68  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

The  Sabbath,  besides  having  its  place  in  the  deca- 
logue, is  throughout  the  old  dispensation  ranked  with 
things  moral,  permanent,  and  highly  important.  It 
is  placed  above  feasts,  cgi'emonies,  and  sacrifices. 
Sacrifices  and  other  solemnities  are  commanded  to  be 
observ^ed  upon  it;  but  while  it  is  admitted  to  the  dec- 
alogue, they  are  not.  In  all  parts  of  the  Pentateuch 
it  is  treated  as  though  vrorthy  of  its  place  in  the  first 
table  of  the  moral  law.  Its  essential  and  great  im- 
portance is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  a  wilful  viola- 
tion of  it  by  the  Jews  was  made  punishable  with 
death  (Ex.  xxxi.  14).  Its  observance  is  ranked  as  an 
essential  aid  to  the  highest  virtues,  and  as  equally 
binding.  Is  Israel  pointed  to  the  first  commandment 
as  of  especial  significance?  the  fourth  is  placed  by 
its  side:  ''  Six  days  thou  shalt  do  thy  work,  and  on  the 
seventh  day  thou  shalt  rest;  .  .  .  And  in  all  things 
that  I  have  said  unto  you  take  ye  heed;  and  make 
no  mention  of  the  name  of  other  gods,  neither  let  it 
be  heard  out  of  thy  mouth"  (Ex.  xxiii.  12,  13).  In 
another  passage  the  first,  second,  and  fifth  command- 
ments are  ranged  with  the  fourth,"  and  the  obser- 
vance of  them  all  is  made  requisite  to  holiness!  "Ye 
shall  be  holy;  for  I  the  Lord  your  God  am  holy.  Ye 
shall  fear  every  one  his  father  and  his  mother,  and 
keep  my  Sabbaths;  I  am  the  Lord  your  God.  Turn 
ye  not  unto  idols,  nor  make  to  yourselves  molten  gods : 
I  am  the  Lord  your  God"  (Lev.  xix.  1-3).  One  pas- 
sage declares  that  the  Sabbath  is  a  sign,  and  implies 
that  it  is  a  direct  means  for  the  sanctification  of  the 
people:  "Verily,  ye  shall  keep  my  Sabbath;  for  it  is 
a  sign  between  me  and  you  throughout  yonr  genera- 
tions; that  ye  may  know  that  I  am  the  Lord  which 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  APOSTLES  69 

doth  sanctify  you.  Ye  shall  keep  the  Sabbath  there- 
fore; for  it  is  holy  unto  you"  (Ex.  xxxi.  18,  14). 
These  Scripture  facts  unmistakably  indicate  that  the 
Sabbath  has  in  it  very  essential  moral  elements.  It 
is  not  simply  typical  of  a  future  rest;  it  is  an  abso- 
lute means  to  the  rest  and  peace  of  holiness,  here  and 
hereafter. 

Farther  on  in  Jewish  history  the  true  prophets  are 
ever  endeavoring  to  maintain  the  strict  observance  of 
the  Sabbath  in  Israel.  False  and  formal  observances; 
ceremonies  without  the  heart,  the  Lord  through  his 
prophets  contemns  (Isa.  i.  11-14).  But  the  highest 
divine  favor  is  upon  him  that  truly  keeps  the  Sab- 
bath. Its  observance  is  ranked  with  keeping  judg- 
ment and  doing  justice  and  keeping  from  evil:  ''Keep 
ye  judgment,  and  do  righteousness  .  .  .  Blessed 
is  the  man  that  doeth  this,  and  the  son  of  man 
that  holdeth  fast  by  it;  that  keepeth  the  Sabbath 
from  polluting  it,  and  keepeth  his  hand  from  doing 
any  evil"  (Isa.  Ivi.  1,  2).  And  all  strangers  that  ob- 
serve the  Sabbath  have  equal  blessings  with  Israel: 
"  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  the  eunuchs  that  keep 
my  Sabbaths,  and  choose  the  things  that  please  me, 
and  hold  fast  by  my  covenant;  unto  them  will  I  give 
in  mine  house  and  within  my  walls  a  memorial  and  a 
name  better  than  of  sons  and  of  daughters;  I  will 
give  them  an  everlasting  name  that  shall  not  be  cut 
off.  Also,  the  strangers  that  join  themselves  to  the 
Lord,  to  minister  unto  him,  and  to  love  the  name  of 
the  Lord,  to  be  his  servants,  every  one  that  keepeth 
the  Sabbath  from  profaning  it,  and  holdeth  fast  by 
my  covenant;  even  them  will  I  bring  to  my  holy 
mountain,   and  make   them   joyful  in  my  house  of 


70  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

prayer"  (Isa.  Ivi.  4-7).  Keeping  the  Sabbath  is 
ranked  with  making  and  keeping  a  covenant  with 
God,  and  with  loving  the  name  of  the  Lord.  Sab- 
bath^keeping,  when  fully  right,  involves  moral  char- 
acter, embraces  the  intent  of  the  heart,  and  in  itself 
must  have  moral  elements.  As  Bishop  Daniel  Wil- 
son says,  the  sanctification  of  the  Sabbath  is  described 
as  a  main  proof  of  essential  piety.^  It  involved  prin- 
ciples and  services  demanded  by  our  relations  to  God, 
and  taught  us  even  in  the  nature  of  things. 

7.  A  moral  law  pertains  to  the  duties  of  rational 
beings,  and  has  its  reasons  in  the  nature  and  relations 
of  things.  A  positive  laio  pertains  also  to  the  con- 
duct of  rational  beings;  but  has  not  its  reasons  in  the 
nature  and  relations  of  things,  but  in  the  will  of  a 
governmental  authority.  Moral  and  positive  laws 
are  often  combined.  There  is  a  moral  law  against 
murder;  the  state  makes  it  also  a  positive  law.  The 
decalogue  is  composed  of  laws  having  each  a  moral 
nature;  but  in  respect  to  their  enactment  merely  for 
the  Jewish  nation  they  were  positive  laws.  The  Jew- 
ish civil  and  ceremonial  laws  were  positive,  because 
enacted  for  that  nation,  and  in  part  for  that  age  of 
the  world.  Yet  they  had  some  moral  elements.  All 
moral  laws  and  elements  are  binding,  wherever  ap- 
plicable; but  positive  laws,  so  far  as  they  are  posi- 
tive, are  binding  only  on  those  for  whom  they  were 
enacted.  ''Moral  duties,"  says  Bishop  Butler,  "arise 
out  of  the  nature  of  the  case  itself,  prior  to  external 
command.  Positive  duties  do  not  arise  out  of  the  na- 
ture of  the   case,  but   from   external   command;  nor 

^  Divine  Authority  and  Perpetual  Obligation  of  the  Lord's 
Day,  p.  75. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  APOSTLES  71 

would  they  be  duties  at  all,  were  it  not  for  such  com- 
mand, received  from  him  whose  creatures  and  sub- 
jects we  are."  *  The  decalogue — given  when  God  met 
the  great  Hebrew  host,  and  spake  to  them  from  Mount 
Sinai,  written  twice  by  his  finger  on  tables  of  stone, 
preserved  in  the  ark  of  the  covenant — received  this 
amazing  enactment  as  positive  law  to  the  Jews,  be- 
cause it  was,  in  general,  supreme  moral  law  to  man- 
kind. "  Moral  precepts  are  precepts,"  says  Butler, 
"  the  reasons  for  which  we  see."  The  reasons  for 
labor,  for  rest,  for  keeping  holy  time,  for  worship,  we 
can  see;  and  thus  far  the  fourth  commandment  is 
moral  in  its  nature.  The  reasons  for  the  proportions  of 
time  devoted  to  labor  and  to  rest,  and  for  the  number 
of  the  day  that  shall  be  sacred,  we  cannot  see  until 
expressly  told;  and  in  these  respects  this  command  is 
of  the  nature  of  positive  law.  The  decalogue  as  a 
whole  is  moral;  as  a  merely  national  law  for  the  Jews, 
positive,  like  their  civil  and  ceremonial  law.  The 
penalties  of  the  decalogue,  not  being  in  the  com- 
mands themselves,  but  in  positive  enactments  for  the 
Jews,  were  binding  only  on  them,  and  in  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  except  as  they  involved  moral  prin- 
ciples. Some  duties  pertaining  to  the  several  com- 
mands, not  being  stated  in  them,  but  growing  out  of 
positive  laws,  were  binding  only  upon  that  people, 
except  as  they  had  a  morai,  and  therefore  permanent 
nature. 

All  of  the  ten  commandments,  with  penalties,  were 
undoubtedly  more  or  less  in  force  before  their  en- 
grossment at  Sinai.  The  offerings  to  God  by  Abel, 
Noah,  and  others,  implied  a  knowledge  of  the  duty 

^Complete  Works,  p.  176. 


72  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

to  love  and  serve  him.  Idolatry  and  the  use  of  im- 
ages were  known  to  be  evil;  for  Jacob  required  his 
household  and  all  with  him  to  put  away  the  "  strange 
gods"  (Gen.  xxxv.  2).  The  early  frequent  admin- 
istration of  oaths  doubtless  implies  a  knowledge  of 
the  third  commandment.  The  honor  due  to  parents 
is  indicated  by  the  conduct  of  Noah's  sons,  and  their 
father's  blessing  and  the  curse  pronounced;  and  pa- 
rental authority  was  honored  in  the  fact  that  Abra- 
ham was  blessed  for  commanding  his  children  after 
him  (Gen.  xviii.  19).  Cain  was  cursed  for  murder, 
and  the  world  was  destroyed  by  flood  because  of  cor- 
ruption and  violence  (Gen.  vi.  11).  Shechem  suf- 
fered judgment  for  breaking  what  was  afterwards 
the  seventh  commandment  (Gen.  xxxiv.  1-31).  Four 
kings  were  smitten  by  Abram  and  his  servants  for 
breaking  the  eighth  of  the  decalogue  (Gen.  xiv.  1-24) ; 
and  Joseph's  brethren  protested  against  the  charge 
of  theft  (Gen.  xliv.  8).  Abimelech  remonstrated 
with  Abraham  for  falsely  testifying  that  his  wife 
was  his  sister  (Gen.  xx.);  and  covetousness  was  a 
violation  of  law,  and,  especially  with  kings,  a  com- 
mon sin.  Enoch  was  translated,  and  Noah  preserved 
from  destruction,  because  they  walked  with  God 
(Gen.  V.  24;  vi.  9);  while  Sodom  and  Gomorrah 
were  destroyed  by  fire,  because  the  men  were  sinners 
before  the  Lord  exceedingly  (xiii.  13).  Previous  to 
the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai  nine  commandments  of 
the  decalogue  had  been  given,  and  had  been  broken 
times  without  number;  the  fourth  commandment  was 
probably  no  exception.  Even  Archbishop  Whately, 
in  arguing  that  the  whole  Mosaic  code,  including  the 
decalogue,  had  been  abrogated,^  claims  "that  some 

1  Difficulties  of  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  pp.  148,  150,  152. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  APOSTLES  73 

Sabbatical  institution,  in  memory  of  the  creation, 
existed  in  the  patriarchal  times,  .  .  .  that  some 
kind  of  observance  of  the  seventh  day  existed  prior 
to  the  Mosaic  law."  *  He  also  claims  that,  "  though 
the  Mosaic  law  does  not  bind  us,  our  moral  obliga- 
tions exist  quite  independent  of  that  law," "  and 
that  we  find  "  the  most  ample  evidence  of  the 
observance  of  the  Lord's  day  as  a  Christian  festival 
by  the  apostles  and  their  immediate  converts,  whose 
example  has  been  followed  by  all  Christian  churches 
down  to  this  day."  ^  The  decalogue,  then,  is  abol- 
ished only  so  far  as  it  was  a  system  of  positive  laws 
for  the  Jews,  Its  moral  character,  in  which  are  its 
more  essential  elements,  remains,  and  is  obligatory 
on  us.  Even  the  positive  nature  of  the  ante-Mosaic 
Sabbath— as  its  septenary  character — continues,  be- 
cause unaffected  by  the  abolition  or  fulfilment  of 
Judaism.  All  Jewish  positive  laws  were  based  on 
moral  principles;  as,  the  command  to  offer  the  first- 
fruits,  on  the  princixDle  of  thankful  homage  due  the 
great  Giver;  and  the  requirement  of  sin=offerings,  on 
the  principle  that  there  can  be  no  forgiveness  of  sin 
without  the  shedding  of  blood — suffering.  The  posi- 
tive laws  may  be  temporary,  while  the  principles  are 
eternal. 

Closing,  now,  this  part  of  the  discussion,  we  claim 
that  a  fair  and  full  investigation  shows  that  there 
was  an  ante^Mosaic  sacred  day,  that  the  disbelievers 
in  such  a  day  fail  to  give  a  satisfactory  account  of 
the  early  septenary  division  of  time,  and  modern 
researches  in  cuneiform  inscriptions  seem  positively 
to  confirm  the  other  evidence  of  such  a  division,  and 

1  Ibid.,  p.  161.  2  Ibid.,  p.  161.  3  Ibid.,  p.  163. 


74  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

of  a  genuine  Sabbath ;  that  none  have  shown  that  the 
decalogue,  or  even  the  fourth  commandment,  is  abro- 
gated, or  that  either  was  given  solely  for  the  Jews; 
that  the  whole  decalogue  stands  on  a  plane  superior 
to  that  of  the  Jewish  civil  and  ceremonial  law;  that 
the  apostle  Paul  in  teaching  that  the  observance  of 
the  seventh  day  in  the  new  dispensation  was  optional, 
as  was  that  of  other  sacred  days  and  seasons  of  the 
old  dispensation,  did  nothing  to  undermine  the 
moral  elements  of  the  fourth  commandment;  and 
that  all  moral  elements  are  permanent  and  universal 
in  their  application.  Thus  we  come  out  of  the  old 
dispensation  with  the  moral,  which  are  the  chief, 
elements  of  the  original  Sabbath  undiminished,  un- 
tarnished, enforced  upon  us  by  both  reason  and 
Scripture,  and,  dissolved  from  their  former  positive 
ordinal  element  of  time=reckoning,  likely  to  assume 
some  new  relation  in  the  new  dispensation. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  CHANGE  OF  OBSERVANXE  FROM  THE  SEVENTH  TO 
THE  lord's  day. 

Having  considered  the  Sabbath  of  the  old  dispen- 
sation, it  is  intended  now  to  consider  whether  there 
is  divine  authority  for  a  change  of  the  weekly  sacred 
day  in  the  new  dispensation,  and  if  there  is,  in  vrhat 
that  authority  consists. 

1.  The  Lord's  day  has  what  is  known  in  affairs  of 
property  as  the  right  of  possession,  which  should 
hold  unless  disproved.  The  Christian  public  gener- 
erally,  through  many  centuries  have  kept  the  first 
day  sacred;  and  they  should  continue  as  they  have 
been  born  and  bred,  unless  they  find  reason  for 
change.  We  observe  the  Fourth  of  July  as  that  of 
the  declaration  of  indej)endence,  not  so  much  be- 
cause we  have  individually  examined  history  to  see 
whether  that  is  the  true  day,  as  because  the  example 
of  our  fathers  has  naturally  led  us  to  suppose  it  is  the 
right  one.  For  like  reasons  we  observe  the  first  day 
of  the  week  as  the  Sabbath.  But  if  thorough  re- 
search should  i)rove  that  the  third  of  July  and  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week  are  the  ones  to  be  observed, 
we  ought  to  change. 

2.  The  change  of  institutions  in  the  change  from 
the  old  dispensation  to  the  new  was  not  sudden  and 

75 


76  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

violent,  but  gradual  and  rational;  the  new  institu- 
tions commencing,  indeed,  immediately,  but  the  old 
ones  disappearing  gradually.  The  old  institutions 
were  not  sinful,  though  the  new  had  commenced,  else 
they  should  have  been  at  once  abandoned.  Hence 
time  was  taken  for  the  people  to  think,  and  to  change, 
not  through  force,  but  through  principles.  Baptism 
took  the  place,  in  a  sense,  pertaining  to  covenant,  of 
circumcision.  Baptism  was  commenced  immediately; 
but  circumcision  was  continued  more  or  less  by  some 
of  the  Christians  through  many  years.  It  was  twenty 
years  after  the  death  of  Christ — after  the  beginning 
of  the  new  dispensation — that  Paul  circumcised  Tim- 
othy. The  Lord's  supper  took  the  place  of  the  pass- 
over,  and,  instituted  just  as  Christ  was  about  to  give 
his  life  for  the  world,  it  was  intended  to  commemorate 
that  act  to  the  end  of  time.  Yet  the  Christians  did 
not  immediately  abandon  the  passover,  but  with 
some  subsequent  modifications,  kept  it  several  cen- 
turies. Christ's  sacrifice  took  the  place  of  the  many 
temple  sacrifices.  But  the  Christians  a  long  time 
continued  to  attend  the  temple  services  held  in  con- 
nection with  the  sacrifices,  even  until  the  temple  was 
destroyed,  and  there  was  no  more  place  for  sacrifice. 
Immediately  after  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
at  pentecost  the  believers  were  continually  in  the 
temple  praising  God  (Acts  ii.  46,  47).  When  Peter 
healed  a  lame  man,  as  he  and  John  were  going  to  the 
temple  at  the  hou  r  of  prayer,  it  was  the  evening  hour 
for  sacrifice.  Twenty=seven  years  after  the  death  of 
Christ  we  find  Paul  purifying  himself,  with  four 
others  that  had  a  vow  (Acts  xxi.  26),  and  that  cere- 
mony involved  offering  sacrifice  in  the  temple  (Num, 


CHANGE  FROM  SEVENTH  TO  LORD'S  DAY  11 

vi.  3-18).  While  doing  this,  then,  as  a  matter  of 
prudence  with  the  Jews,  he  adopted  principles  and 
practices  that  contributed  to  the  final  abandonment 
of  all  sacrifices.  We  must  conclude  that  while  the 
institutions  of  the  new  dispensation  were  commenced 
at  its  beginning,  those  of  the  old  were  not  immedi- 
ately forsaken.  And  by  analogy,  if  we  find  that  the 
apostles  and  primitive  saints  kept  the  first  day,  we 
shall  also  find  that  they  did  not  at  once  give  up  all 
observance  of  the  seventh  day. 

3  Our  authority  for  the  change  from  the  institu- 
tions of  the  old  dispensation  to  those  of  the  new  does 
not  come  so  much  by  the  explicit  commands  of  the 
apostles  as  by  their  examples.  We  have  Christ's  dis- 
tinct command  to  be  baptized,  but  neither  his  nor  his 
apostles'  command  to  discontinue  circumcision.  Yet 
the  apostles  taught  that  circumcision  was  not  neces- 
sary to  salvation,  and  under  that  principle  it  ceased. 
^We  have  no  command  from  either  Christ  or  apostles 
to  cease  the  observance  of  the  passover.  Christ  gave 
command  to  his  apostles  to  observe  the  Lord's  sup- 
per; but  he  did  not  give  that  command  to  all  believers 
nor  did  his  apostles.  We  infer  the  duty  and  privi- 
lege of  all  Christians  to  observe  it  from  the  example 
of  the  apostles  in  administering  it  to  all  Christians  of 
their  time,  which  indicates  their  understanding  of 
Christ's  original  command  to  observe  it.  In  such 
things  apostolic  example  is  equal  to  command.  We 
have  no  inspired  command  to  cease  off ering  sacrifices; 
but  from  principles  set  forth  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  from  the  example  of  the  apostles,  and 
of  the  Christians  under  their  instructions,  in  finally 
omitting  sacrifices  altogether,   we   conclude  that  it 


78  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

would  be  wrong  in  us  now  to  offer  sacrifices  as  under 
the  old  dispensation.  By  parity  of  reasoning,  if  the 
first  day  takes  the  place  of  the  seventh,  we  shall  not 
find  a  command  to  cease  observing  the  seventh,  and 
shall  find  inspired  example  in  keeping  the  first  day, 
rather  than  distinct  command  to  keep  it.  Whatever 
the  apostles  of  Christ  taught  by  example,  while  under 
inspiration,  we  are  bound  to  observe.  If  they  and- 
the  Christians  with  them  carefully  and  steadily  kept 
sacred  the  first  day  of  the  week,  then,  of  course,  the 
apostles  gave  instruction  to  those  around  them  so  to 
do;  and  that  example  and  instruction  are  authorita- 
tive. We  cannot  think  it  right  to  go  contrary  to  the 
universal  apostolic  instruction  and  example.  From 
their  example  we  get  the  light  of  duty. 

4.  A  change  of  time  for  the  sacred  day  from  the 
seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  presumptively 
possible  and  probable.  (1)  So  far  as  the  original 
Sabbath  pertained  to  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  it 
admitted  the  possibility  of  a  change.  If  changed,  it 
would  still  read,  "Remember  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep 
it  holy."  So  far  as  the  day  was  positive,  it  was  mut- 
able. (2)  Nothing  in  its  nature  forbade  a  change 
Its  time  was  not  different  in  kind  from  that  of  other 
days.  It  could  as  well  be  a  blessing  to  man  on  the 
first  as  on  the  seventh  day  if  the  Lord  changed  it. 
(3)  Exact  identity  in  observance  of  time  is,  and  ever 
has  been,  a  practical  imj)ossibility  never  required. 
The  world  turns  around;  men  do  not  keep  the  same 
time  that  we  do  either  in  Europe  or  California.*  God 

*  When  the  late  Czar  of  Russia  died  we  heard  immediately  of 
it  here  in  the  morning  of  the  day  on  which  it  occnrred  in  the 
afternoon. 


CHANGE  FROM  SEVEXTH  TO  LORD'S  DAY  7§ 

could  therefore  change  the  time  without  a  viola- 
tion of  his  own  law  in  the  constitution  of  the  day. 
Traveling  westward  the  days  lengthen,  and  continu- 
ing around  the  globe  in  that  direction,  we  should  lose 
one  day,  and  of  necessity  must  make  a  change  in  or- 
der to  be  in  accord  with  other  Sabbath  worshipers. 
Going  north  of  the  Arctic  circle  we  should  have  but 
one  day  and  one  night  in  the  year,  if  measured  by 
the  visibility  of  the  sun,  and  could  not  have  a  Sab- 
bath in  unison  with  those  nearer  the  equator.  Two 
parties  encircling  the  earth  by  going  in  different  di- 
rections, east  and  west,  will  be  two  days  apart  when 
they  meet  at  the  point  whence  they  started.  An 
English  ship  touched  at  Pitcairn's  Island  in  the  Pa- 
cific on  a  Saturday,  and  found  the  islanders  keeping 
Sunday.  The  explanation  was  in  the  fact  that  they  had 
gone  thither  from  the  same  home-land  by  sailing  in 
opposite  directions.  Though  differing  one  day  in 
time,  each  party  was  in  God's  sight  acceptably  keep- 
ing the  Lord's  day,  if  either  was;  yet,  continuing  to- 
gether, an  adjustment  so  as  to  keep  the  same  time 
would  be  important  and  proper.  (4)  The  essential 
chief  point  in  the  fourth  commandment  is  not  keep- 
ing a  particular  seventh  day,  but  devoting  six  days  to 
the  general  purposes  of  labor,  and  one — a  seventh — 
to  holy  rest;^  and  the  seventh  day  might  be  termed 
the  first,  or  the  first  the  seventh.  (5)  The  objects  of 
rest  could  as  well  be  secured  on  another  day  than  the 
seventh,  if  God  so  direct.  One  of  those  objects  i^ 
worship,  which  is  not  dependent  on  a  particular  time, 
though  it  should  be  conformed  to  the  divine  plan. 
Dr.  Dale  objects:  ''The  law  required  rest;  it  did  not 
^  Dr.  Schaff,  Apostolical  Church,  p.  556. 


80  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

require  worship."^  And  Professor  Moses  Stuart  says: 
"There  was  no  provision  for  social  worship  among 
the  Hebrews  on  the  Sabbath."^  The  truth  is,  a  "holy 
convocation"  for  public  worship  was  expressly  ap- 
pointed for  the  Sabbath  before  the  Israelites  broke 
up  their  encami^ment  at  Sinai  (Lev.  xxiii.  3).^  Nor 
were  they  ignorant  of  holy  convocations  previous  to 
that  time.  We  find  in  Ex.  xii.  16  that  "an  holy  con- 
vocation" was  appointed  for  both  the  first  and  the 
seventh  days  of  the  passover  feast  when  it  was  insti- 
tuted, before  the  Jews  left  Egypt.  In  their  minds, 
doubtless,  keeping  the  Sabbath  "holy"  implied  a 
"holy  convocation."  (6)  The  command  does  not  ab- 
solutely preclude  a  change  of  day;  since  it  does  not 
read,  "Remember  the  seventh  day,"  but  "the  Sabbath 
day,  to  keep  it  holy."  Though  on  the  seventh  day 
then,  it  need  not  be  always.  The  seventh  was  sub- 
sidiary to  the  Sabbath,  and  might,  by  divine  appoint- 
ment, give  place  to  another  day.  (7)  The  seventh 
day  was  chosen  to  commemorate  a  particular  event — 
the  creation.  A  change  might  be  made,  to  commem- 
orate a  greater  event,  on  another  day.  (8)  An  event 
greater,  in  some  aspects,  has  occurred — the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ — the  climax  of  his  redemptive 
work.  "If  Christ  hath  not  been  raised  then  is  our 
preaching  vain,  your  faith  also  is  vain"  (1  Cor.  xv. 
14).  "I  create  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth"  (Isa. 
Ixv.  17).  The  new  creation  is  the  beginning  of  the  new 
dispensation.  The  original  Sabbath  commemorated 
the  completion  of  the  first  creation;  the  Lord's  day 
commemorates  that  of  the  second  creation.     Here  are 

^Ten  Commandments,  p.  99. 
2  Old  Test.  Canon,  pp.  66,  67. 
^  See  in  loc.  Kalisch,  Lange,  and  Murphy. 


CHANGE  FROM  SEVENTH  TO  LORD'S  DAY  81 

two  great  events,  and  two  special  days  commemorat- 
ing them.  But  the  events  and  the  origin  of  the  days 
are  in  different  eras  and  dispensations;  yet  both  days 
pertain  to  weekly  time.  As  the  latter  dispensation 
takes  the  place  of  the  former,  it  might  be  expected 
that  the  commemorative  day  of  the  latter  would  take 
the  place  of  that  of  the  former.  (9)  Yet  the  change 
of  time,  while  specially  commemorating  the  new 
event, — the  Redeemer's  resurrection, —  would  not 
wholly  discard  the  commemoration  of  the  original 
event — the  creation.  For  still  there  would  be  the  six 
days'  labor  in  memory  of  God's  creative  w^ork,  and  the 
one  day  of  rest  in  memory  of  his  rest.  (10)  The 
original  Sabbath  having  been  given  in  part  to  develop 
and  sanctify  man's  religious  nature,  and  the  Lord's 
day  being  better  fitted  now^  in  the  new  dispensation 
to  accomplish  the  same  purpose,  it  might  be  expected 
that  it  W' ould  be  put  in  the  place  of  the  original  day. 
(11)  The  fact  that  Christ,  as  Lord  of  the  Sabbath, 
absolved  himself  and  followers  from  Jewish  Sabbatic 
perversions,  and  from  slavery  to  the  letter  of  Sabbatic 
law,  without  abolishing  the  Sabbath,  suggests  the 
probability  that  he  will  change  the  time  of  the  sacred 
day  if  sufficient  reasons  for  it  should  arise.  (12)  The 
fact  that  through  several  centuries  previous  to  the 
coming  of  Christ  many  Jews  perverted  the  Sabbath, 
and  in  its  name  bound  upon  themselves  and  others 
many  burdens  grievious  to  be  borne,  suggests  that 
the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  may  change  the  time  of  the 
sacred  day  to  relieve  it  from  those  multiform  abuses, 
and  to  give  his  new  church  a  new  and  free  day  for  its 
most  precious   religious   festivals,    the   commemora- 


82  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

tion  of  Christ's  death,  by  the  Lord's  supper,  and  that 
of  his  resurrection,  the  completion  of  his  redemption, 
by  the  new  day  itself. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

"  THE      FIRST     DAY "  BECOMES      THE     SACRED    WEEKLY 
DAY   AMONG   THE   EARLY   CHRISTIANS. 

In  the  chapter  next  preceding  on  the  Sabbath  we 
have  seen  that  there  was  a  possibility,  and  even  prob- 
ability, of  a  change  of  observance  from  the  seventh 
to  some  other  day  of  the  week.  We  now  resume  and 
proceed  with  the  discussion. 

1.  The  Lord's  day  in  the  new  dispensation  was  the 
chief  of  all  days  with  the  apostles  and  early  Chris- 
tians, and  was  their  special  day  for  rest  and  worship. 

(1).  The  Lord's  day  during  the  Apostolic  age.  (a) 
Christ,  in  the  first  instance,  gave  great  significance 
and  emphasis  to  his  resurrection  day,  by  appearing 
five  different  times  to  his  disciples  during  its  hours. 
— to  Mary  Magdalene  (John  xx.  14-17),  to  the  othei 
women  (Matt,  xxviii.  9,  10),  to  the  two  disciples  on 
the  road  to  Emmaus  (Luke  xxiv.  13-31;  Mark  xvi.  12), 
to  the  ajpostle  Peter  separately  (1  Cor.  xv.  5),  and  to 
ten  of  the  apostles  collected  together  (Mark  xvi.  14; 
Luke  xxiv.  36-49;  John  xx.  19-23).  In  respect  to 
power,  he  might  just  as  well  have  risen  on  the 
seventh  day.  Why  did  he  not  do  it,  and  give  it  the 
more  honor?  But  simply  appearing  so  many  times 
on  the  day  that  he  rose  might  not  in  itself  have  made 
it  a  sacred  festival,  either  weekly,  monthly,  or  annual 

83 


84  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Yet  much  more  notice  of  it  in  its  ^Yeekly  round,  either 
by  himself  or  his  apostles,  would  be  nearly  certain  to 
make  it  a  noted  day,  and  sacred  to  the  Christians. 

Objection:  These  admitted  facts  of  Christ's  appear- 
ance on  the  day  that  he  rose  do  not  prove  a  change  of 
sacred  time.  Reply:  Seventh=day  authors  are  pro- 
fuse in  their  representations  that  First=day  keepers 
adduce  Christ's  several  manifestations  of  himself  on 
his  resurrection  day  as  proof  that  that  day  in  its  week- 
ly recurrence  should  be  kept  holy,  and  the  seventh 
day  be  spent  as  secular.  Thus  they  mislead  tens  of 
thousands  of  their  readers  and  adherents.^  First-day 
observers  claim  this:  that  the  occurrences  on  the  day 
in  the  morning  of  which  Christ  rose,  constitute  the 
beginning  of  a  series  of  events,  which  soon  led  to  the 
universal  keeping  by  Christians  of  the  first  day  of  the 
week  as  sacred;  and  that  that  early  observance  and 
its  causes  have  made  the  first  day  chief  and  holy  in 
nearly  the  whole  militant  church   in   all  subsequent 


(5)  But,  Christ,  while  not  appearing  again,  so  far 
as  we  learn,  during  the  next  six  days  after  that  of  his 
resurrection,  not  even  on  the  Sabbath  embraced  in 
that  number,  did  appear  on  the  next  first  day,  at 
least  to  the  eleven,  and  in  commemoration,  it  would 
seem,  of  his  resurrection,  as  well  as  mercifully  to  con- 
vince the  doubting  Thomas  (John  xx.  24-29).  For 
some  reasons,  a  portion  of  which  apparently  do  not 
appear,  the  disciples,  and  especially  the  sacred  writers, 
at  once  came  to   regard  the   first  day  of  the  week  as 

^Andrews,  Hist.  Sab.,  p.  143;  also,  Examination  of  Seven 
Reasons  for  Sunday=keeping,  pp.  8,  9. 


THE  ''FIRST  DAY''  —THE  SACRED  DAY  85 

sacred  and  honored.  There  it  stands,  with  them  a 
marked  and  remarkable  day. 

Objection  First:  Christ  and  his  disciples  did  not 
keep  the  day  on  which  he  rose  as  sacred  and  holy;  he 
and  two  disciples  traveled  to  Emmaus  on  that  day 
and  returned;  the  women  went  to  embalm  his  body, 
which  they  would  not  have  done  on  the  '  Sabbath. 
Reply:  It  is  not  claimed  that  there  was  a  constitu- 
tional change  in  the  time  of  the  first  day,  nor  admit- 
ted that  the  Sabhath^s  hours  were  different  in  nature 
from  the  time  of  other  days,  nor  was  it  intended  that 
the  first  day  should  be  observed  before  its  purport 
was  understood;  neither  does  any  divine  law  prescribe 
how  far  it  is  proper  to  walk  or  ride  on  the  Sabbath 
or  the  Lord's  day. 

Objection  Second:  The  "eight  days''^  after  the 
resurrection  of  Christ,  when  he  appeared  unto  the 
eleven,  were  a  day  more  than  a  week,  and  conse- 
quently the  time  was  on  our  Monday.^  Reply:  By 
the  Hebrew  reckoning  it  ivas  at  the  beginning  of  the 
eighth  day  from  Christ's  resurrection.  Just  seven 
days  from  that  event  was  the  jirst  day  morning,  and 
the  following  evening  after  sunset  was  the  beginning 
of  the  Jewish  eighth  day — the  close  of  the  Koman 
seventh  day — what  we  call  Sunday  evening.  There 
was  just  a  week  between  the  two  appearances  of 
Christ  to  his  apostles,  or  perhaps  a  few  hours  more 
than  a  week.  The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  speak  of 
"  eight  days "  when  the  eighth  had  been  only  com^ 
menced,  not  completed.  The  circumcision  of  Christ 
occurred    ''  when   eight    days    were    accomplished " 

'  W.  H.  Little  John,  Constitutional  Amendment,  pp.  31-36, 
2  John  XX.  26.  3  Andrews,  Hist.  Sab.,  pp.  147,  118, 


86  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

(Luke  ii.  21),  which  was  when  the  eighth  day  had 
been  reached,  not  ended/  For,  the  law  was,  that  "  in 
the  eighth  day "  of  the  child's  life  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision should  be  observed  (Lev.  xn.  3);  and  in 
the  case  of  John  the  Baptist,  "  on  the  eighth  day  they 
came  to  circumcise  the  child  "  (Luke  i.  59).  There- 
fore, since  the  phrase  "  when  eight  days  were  accom- 
lolished  "  means  only  after  the  eighth  day  was  begun, 
the  phrase,  "after  eight  days"  (John  xx.  26)  does 
not  necessarily  mean  any  more.  And  since  "  the 
same  day"  (»John  xx.  19)  reckoned  from  was  the  day, 
and  not  the  later  evening  of  the  day,  on  which  Christ 
rose,  it  was  near  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  day 
from  his  resurrection  when  he  appeared  the  second 
time  to  his  assembled  apostles,  Thomas  being  with 
them,  And  therefore  the  time  was  the  evening  of 
Sunday,  and  7iot  of  Monday,  as  the  seventh=day  Sab- 
batarians claim. 

Further,  the  terms  "  first  day  "  and  "  eighth  day  " 
were  interchangeable  by  common  usage.  They  evi- 
dently meant  the  same,  and  the  writings  of  the  early 
Fathers  show  such  use.  Justin  says,  '•  The  first  day 
after  the  Sabbath,  remaining  the  first  of  all  the  days, 
is  called,  however,  the  eighth."  ^  It  was,  therefore, 
natural  to  speak  of  the  second  "  first,"  or  "  eighth," 
day  as  "eight  days"  after  the  first,  the  two  extreme 
days  being  counted,  Such  method  of  reckoning  was 
common  in  that  age,  as  also  that  of  excluding  the 
two  extremes.  In  Luke  ix.  28  is  a  case  of  the  inclu- 
sive method,  and  in  Matt.  xvii.  1  and  Mark  ix.  2  a 
case  of  the  exclusive,   both  cases  pertaining  to  the 

1  See  Towneend's  Notes  on  Luke  ii,  21. 

2  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  chap,  xli.;  Aut.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.ii.  p.  139. 


THE  ''FIRST  DAY''  —THE  SACRED  DAY  87 

same  event — the  transfiguration  of  Christ.  Both 
modes  of  computing  were  occasionally  employed  by 
the  same  writer.  In  Tacitus'  History,  chapter  xxix., 
Piso  speaks  of  himself  as  Caesar — within  the  ex- 
tremes of— six  days;  and  in  chajpter  xlviii.  Piso  is 
described  as  Caesar  during  four  days.' 

Still  further,  though  the  Jews  in  Christ's  time  in 
some  respects  used  the  Hebrew  chronology,  they  evi- 
dently often  reckoned  days  by  the  number  of  different 
times  the  sun  appeared.  At  evening,  after  sunset, 
and  during  the  night,  they  would  sf)eak  of  the  next 
morning  as  the  "  morrow,"  just  as  we  do,  though  by 
the  Hebrew  reckoning  it  was  the  same  day.  Paul 
preached  at  Troas  in  the  night  time,  ''  ready  to  depart 
on  the  morrow"  (Acts  xx.  7),  at  the  next  sun,  the 
next  day;  yet,  by  Hebrew  chronology  it  was  really 
not  the  "  morrow,"  but  the  same  day.  One  man  said 
to  another,  "  The  day  groweth  to  an  end,  lodge  here 
.  .  .  and  to-morrow  get  you  early  on  your  way  " 
(Judges  xix.  9).  He  did  not  mean  after  sunset,  but 
after  the  next  sun  came.  If  it  were  already  after 
sunset,  he  would  have  said  the  same.  "  Her  judges 
are  evening  wolves;  they  gnaw  not  the  bones  till  the 
morrow"  (Zeph.  iii.  3).  Wolves  prowl  in  darkness; 
yet  the  next  sun  was  called  the  ''  morrow,"  though 
strictly,  by  Hebrew  reckoning,  the  morrow  was  not 
till  after  the  next  sun  had  set.^  When  Paul  '  contin- 
ued his  speech  until  midnight,"  it  was  reckoned  as 
the  same  day.  He  left  Troas  "  at  break  of  day"  the 
next  morning,  and  that  was  counted  as  ''on  the  mor- 

^  See  Webster  and  Wilkinson's  Com.  on  Luke  ix.  28. 
2See  also,  Ex.  xxxii.  6,  6;    Lev.  vii.  15,  16;     Josh.  vii.  13. 14; 
2  Chrou.  XX.  16.  17,  20;  James  iv.  13,  U. 


88  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

row"  (Acts  XX.  7,  11).  The  night  and  the  next 
morning  were  counted  as  parts  of  two  different  days. 
So,  when  Jesus  was  with  his  apostles  during  the 
evening  next  following  his  resurrection,  it  was  a  part 
of  one  day;  and  the  next  morning  was  a  part  of 
another  day.  Reckoning  thus  is  strictly  Biblical, 
and  counting  thus,  the  next  Sunday,  even  in  the 
morning,  was  "  eight  days  "  after. 

(c)  Some  suppose  that  Christ's  ascension  was  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  making  their  inference  from 
a  passage  in  the  epistle  of  Barnabas,  as  follows:  "We 
celebrate  the  eighth  with  joyfulness,  on  which  Jesus 
rose  from  the  dead,  and  when  he  had  manifested  him- 
self he  ascended  into  the  heavens."  ^  Hefele,  also 
Gebhardt,  Harnack,  and  Zahn,  editors  of  the  latest 
edition  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  ^  reading  the  pas- 
sage with  only  a  comma,  instead  of  a  period,  after  the 
word  ''dead,"  suppose  it  teaches  that  Christ  both  rose 
and  ascended  on  the  eighth  day.  This  view  does  not 
seem  to  be  sufficiently  well  founded. 

(d)  Whatever  admissible  rendering  be  given  to 
Acts  ii.  1,  it  is  apparent  that  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  the  general 
learned  opinion  now  is,  and  the  ancient  Christian 
tradition  was,  that  the  day  of  pentecost  occurred  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  our  Sunday.  The  reckon- 
ing which  results  in  that  conclusion  is  this:  The 
preparation  for  Christ's  last  paschal  supper  (Matt, 
xxvi.  17;  Mark  xiv.  12;  Luke  xxii.  8)  was  made  near 

1  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.;  Vol.  i.  p.  128;  see  also,  "The  Apostolic  Fath- 
ers," translated  by  Rev.  G.  A.  Jackson,  and  edited  by  Prof.  G. 
P.  Fisher,  p.  97. 

2  Patrum  Apostolicorum  opera,  Vol.  i.  p.  57. 


THE  "FIRST  DAY''  —THE  SACRED  DAY  89 

the  close  of  Thursday,  the  fifth  day  of  the  week,  the 
fourteenth  of  the  month  Nisan,  at  which  time  the 
passover  lamb  among  all  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem  was 
slain.  Jesus  ate  the  passover  meal  at  the  usual  time, 
the  beginning  of  the  sixth  day,  their  Friday,  our 
Thursday  evening;  and  at  that  time  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread  commenced.  He  was  crucified  on 
the  sixth  day,  after  the  night  succeeding  Thursday. 
The  wave  offering  was  made  on  the  seventh  day,  Sat- 
urday, the  Jewish  Sabbath,  which  was  the  second 
day  of  the  feast,  and  the  sixteenth  of  Nisan;  and  fifty 
days  from  that  (Lev.  xxiii.  15,  16)  was  the  pentecost, 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  According  to  this,  the 
evidence  is  that  the  Redeemer  again  put  special 
honor  upon  the  day  of  his  resurrection,  by  fulfilling 
his  promise  in  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the 
seventh  first  day  after  that  on  which  he  rose  from 
the  dead, — seeming  thus  to  require  the  continued  ob- 
servance of  the  sacred  week  of  seven  days,  and  to  ap- 
point the  first  day,  instead  of  the  seventh,  as  the  hon- 
ored and  especially  religious  one  henceforth.  That 
was  the  complete  opening  of  the  new  disx^ensation, 
and  the  first  day  was  then  made  the  ''birthday  of  the 
Christian  Chm'ch."  ^  Such  significance  already  given 
the  first  day  by  divine  acts,  together  with  the  effu- 
sion of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  Pentecost,  suggests  the 
probability,  that  further  and  definite  instruction  was 
given  by  the  Savior  in  person  before  his  ascension, 
or  by  his  Spirit  afterwards,  concerning  the  continued 
observance  of  that  day,  which  instruction  was  well 

1  Schaflf,  Church  History,  Vol,  i.  p.   61;  also,  Dr.  Smith's    Old 
Test.  Hist.,  p.   265. 


90  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

understood  by  the  apostles,  and  communicated  by 
them  to  the  Christians  of  their  time,  though  not  re- 
corded for  our  reading. 

Ohjection:  "It  is  generally  supposed  that  this  pen- 
tecost  .  .  .  fell  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  our  Sa't- 
urday."*  Reply:  1.  We  think  it  now  generally  sup- 
posed that  this  pentecost  fell  on  our  Sunday.  But 
we  seek  truth,  not  merely  the  opinion  of  the  majority. 
2.  The  date  of  this  pentecost  depends  on  certain  dates 
connected  with  the  Jewish  passover,  and  on  the  date 
of  Christ's  last  paschal  supper,  and  of  his  death.  It  is, 
therefore,  involved  in  difhculties.  Dr.  Schaff  speaks 
of  it  as  an  "  intricate  question,"  ^  and  Alford  as  "ex- 
tremely difficult."^  Some  authors,  however,  have 
added  to  the  inherent  difficulties  by  their  own  errors. 
Professor  Hackett  and  Dr.  William  Smith,  for  ex- 
ample, agree  in  fixing  upon  Friday,  the  fifteenth  of 
Nisan,  as  the  first  day  of  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread,  and  as  that  of  Christ's  death,  and  upon  Satur- 
day, the  Jewish  Sabbath,  as  the  time  fifty  days  after 
which  (Lev.  xxiii.  15,  16)  the  day  of  Pentecost  oc- 
curred. *  And  yet  Hrof essor  Hackett  infers  that  pen- 
tecost that  year  "fell  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  our 
Saturday,"  and  Dr.  Smith  that  it  "  fell  on  Sunday." 
The  cause  of  this  discrepancy  must  be  this:  The  for- 
mer reckons  Saturday,  the  second  day  of  the  feast,  as 
the  first  of  the  fifty  days,  and  the  latter  reckons  the 
day  following  as  the  first  of  the  fifty.     Who  reckons 

^Hackett,  Com.  on  Acts  ii.  1. 

2  Lange's  Com.  Matt.  p.  454,  note. 

3Com.,  Matt.  ixvi.  17-19. 

*  New  Test.  Hist.,  pp.  314,  380. 


THE  "  FIRST  DA Y "  —THE  SA CRED  DAY  91 

scripturally?  Probably  Dr.  Smith,  as  we  shall  here- 
after attempt  to  show.  ^ 

But  if  Professor  Hackett  and  others  err  in  their 
manner  of  counting,  Dr.  Lange  seems  to  err  in  the 
counting  itself.  He  assumes  correctly,  we  suppose, 
that  the  second  day  of  the  passover  or  feast  of  unleav- 
ened bread  that  year  was  Saturday,  and  that  the  fifty 
days  were  to  be  counted  from  that.  But  in  the  same 
paragraph  he  obliges  himself  to  reckon  that  Satur- 
day as  the  fii'st  of  the  tifty,  by  saying,  "This  feast  of 
[seven]  weeks  was  celebrated  on  the  fiftieth  day  after 
the  first  day  of  the  passover  festival.''  ^  Reckoning 
Saturday,  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  as  the  first  of  the  fifty, 
inevitably  makes  pentecost  come  on  Saturday.  But 
Dr.  Lange  says  it  came  that  year  "  on  our  Sunday.'' 
His  general  knowledge  of  the  subject  seems  to  bring 
him  to  a  right  conclusion;  but  his  reasoning  would 
lead  to  a  wrong  one. 

Olshausen  says:  ''It  was  from  Friday  evening  at 
six  o'clock  that  the  fifty  days  began  to  be  counted,"  ^ 
committing  thus  the  same  error  in  dating  that  Pro- 
fessor Hackett  does.  He  also  agrees  with  him  in  the 
conclusion  that  the  fiftieth  day  fell  upon  Saturday. 
Yet  on  the  same  page  he  virtually  contradicts  him- 
self, by   saying  that  ''Pentecost  in  the  year  of  our 

nVe  have  more  recently  found  that  Dr.  Smith  in  his  Old  Tes- 
tament History,  p.  264,  has  this:  "From  the  sixteenth  of  Nisan 
seven  weeks  were  reckoned  inclusively. ''''  He  includes  the  six- 
teenth, the  Sabbath;  doing  that,  his  deduction  in  his  New  Tes- 
tament History,  p.  380,  note,  is  incorrect.  He  is  inconsistent 
with  himself,  or  has  changed  his  opinion.  Beginning  with  Sat- 
urday and  counting  seven  weeks  brings  us  to  the  eighth  Satur- 
day: and  does  not  include  it,  and  that  Saturday  is  the  fiftieth 
day.      2  Com.,  Acts  ii.  1,  p.  26.     ^  Com.  Acts  ii.  1;  Vol.  iii.  p.  191. 


92  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Lord's  death  fell  upon  Saturday;  but  it  began  at  six 
o'clock  in  the  evening,  when  the  Sabbath  was  at  a 
close,  and  it  lasted  till  six  o'clock  on  Sunday  even- 
ing." That  is  saying  that  it  came  on  Sunday,  when 
he  had  before  said  it  came  on  Saturday.  Beginning 
with  Saturday  and  closing  on  Sunday  would  give  fifty- 
one  days.  We  do  not  find  that  these  discrepancies 
and  errors  in  counting  have  heretofore  been  noticed. 
We  therefore  conclude  that  by  them  the  real  diflScul- 
ties  of  the  subject  may  have  been  unduly  magnified 
in  the  minds  of  many. 

8.  It  seems  to  be  a  certainty  that  the  early  Chris- 
tians regarded  the  event  of  the  outpouring  of  the 
Spirit — that  is,  pentecost — in  the  year  in  which 
Christ  died,  as  occurring  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
And  ever  since  the  primitive  era  the  Christian  world 
in  general  have  conceived  of  Whitsuntide  as  com- 
memorative of  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  pen- 
tecost. Neander  speaks  of  the  feast  of  pentecost  as 
the  equivalent  of  Whitsuntide,  observed  in  remem- 
brance of  Christ  risen  and  glorified,  and  of  the  effu- 
sion of  the  Holy  Spirit.  ^  Dr.  Schaff  says:  "The 
church  always  celebrated  p  entecost  on  Sunday,  the 
fiftieth  day  after  Easter."^  Olshausen  says:  "The 
whole  church,  so  far  as  we  can  trace  the  history  of 
pentecost,  have  celebrated  the  feast  on  Sunday."^ 
Wieseler  supposes  that  the  Western  church  changed 
the  celebration  of  pentecost  from  the  seventh  to  the 
first  day  in  conformity  with  her  observance  of  Easter 
on  that  day.  *     But  his  supposition  is  not  confirmed 

^Hist.  Ch.,  Vol.  i.  p.  300  (Torrey's  Trans.). 

^Hist.  Apost.  Church,  p.  194,  note.  ^Com.,  Acts  ii.  1, 

*Alfordj  New  Test,  for  English  Readers,  Acts  ii,  1-4, 


THE  "  FIRST  DAY''  —THE  SACRED  DAY  93 

by  proof;  and  if  it  were,  it  would  not  account  for 
the  celebration  on  the  first  day  by  the  church  in  gen- 
eral. The  Syriac  New  Testament  was  found  divided 
into  lessons  to  be  read  in  public  worship,  and  in  the 
list  of  Sundays  is  the  "  Sunday  of  Pentecost. "  ^  The 
Peshito  Syriac  version  dates  back,  as  the  learned 
agree,  to  the  close  of  the  second,  or  beginning  of  the 
third,  century,  and  some  suppose  to  the  close  of  the 
first  or  beginning  of  the  second.  So  much  evidence 
of  belief  in  the  primitive  church  that  pentecost  came 
on  Sunday  could  hardly  exist,  unless  it  were  founded 
on  truth.  And  such  general  belief  is  entitled  to 
much  weight  in  discussing  the  question  before  us, 

Among  the  fixed  data  on  this  subject  are  the  fol- 
lowing: Christ  was  crucified  on  Friday,  and  rose  the 
next  Sunday.^  The  preparation  for  the  passover, 
including  the  killing  of  the  paschal  lamb,  was  to  be 
made  on  the  afternoon  of  the  fourteenth  of  Nisan 
(Ex.  xii.  6,  18;  Num.  ix.  3;  xxviii.  16),  and  the  pass- 
over  was  to  be-i  eaten  just  after,  at  evening,  near  the 
beginning  of  the  fifteenth  (Lev.  xxiii.  5).  With  the 
fifteenth  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  or  passover, 
was  to  commence,  and  on  that  day  was  to  be  held  a 
holy  convocation  (Lev.  xxiii.  6,  7).  The  feast  of 
first=fruits,  including  the  wave  offering,  was  to  be  ob- 
served during  passover  week,  on  the  morrow  after  the 

^  Dr.  Gustav  Seyflfarth  holds  the  view  that  Christ  died  on 
Thursday,  not  Friday.  See  Lange  on  Matthew,  Dr.  Schaflf's  note, 
p.  454,  note,  and  p.  457.  Rev.  J.  K.  Aldrich  holds  the  same  the- 
ory, and  presents  a  strong,  yet  not  satisfactory  argument  in  its 
favor.  See  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Vol.  xxvii.,  July,  1870.  But  as 
they  both  regard  Friday  as  the  fifteenth,  their  view  in  respect 
to  the  day  of  pentecost  need  not  be  inharmonious  with  the  one 
advocated  in  these  pages. 


94  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Sabbath  (Lev,  xxiii.  10,  11),  and  fifty  days  from  that, 
inclusive  or  exclusive,  was  to  be  the  day  of  pentecost 
(Lev.  xxiii.  15,  16).  Among  the  unsettled  data  are 
these:  Was  the  Friday  of  that  year  on  which  Christ 
was  crucified  the  fourteenth  or  fifteenth  of  Nisan? 
Was  the  Sunday  on  which  he  rose  from  the  dead 
the  sixteenth  or  seventeenth  of  Nisan?  Did  Jesus 
eat  the  passover  meal  at  the  usual  Jewish  time,  or 
one  day  previous,  i.  e.  at  the  beginning  of  the  four- 
teenth or  of  the  fifteenth  of  the  month?  Was  the 
Sabbath  on  the  morrow  after  which  the  wave  offering 
was  to  be  made  the  regular  weekly  Sabbath  (Lev. 
xxiii.  11),  or  the  first  day  of  convocation  in  the  pass- 
over  week?  Did  the  fifty  days  reckoned  from  the 
morrow  after  the  Sabbath  (Lev.  xxiii.  15, 16)  embrace 
the  morrow  itself? 

We  know,  from  the  evangelists,  that  Christ  rose 
from  the  grave  on  the  first  day  of  the  w^eek,  and 
that  the  day  preceding  was  the  Sabbath,  and  that 
Christ  was  crucified  on  the  day  preceding  the 
Sabbath — Friday.  And  accordingto  the  first  three 
evangelists  we  know  that  Jesus  ate  the  passover  meal 
at  evening,  the  beginning  of  Friday,  apparently  at 
the  usual  time.  That  usual  time  was  certainly  at  the 
beginning  of  the  fifteenth  of  Nisan  (Lev.  xxiii.  9; 
Num.  xxviii.  17);  and  later  in  the  day,  it  would  seem, 
Christ  was  crucified.  This  reckoning  makes  Friday 
the  fifteenth,  and  not  the  fourteenth,  of  Nisan,  in  the 
year  of  Christ's  death.  Nothing  would  make  it  seem 
otherwise,  except  this:  The  apostle  John  speaks  of 
the  Jews  as  on  Friday  forenoon  yet  to  eat  the  passover 
(xviii.  28).  If  they  had  not  already  partaken  of  the 
first  and  chief  passover  meal,  and  were  to  do  it  the 


THE  ''FIRST  DAY''  —THE  S ACHED  DAY  95 

following   evening,    then   this   Friday  was   the  four- 
teenth, and  not  the  fifteenth  of  the  month. 

We  need  to  determine  the  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
"But  that  they  might  eat  the  passover"  (John  xviii. 
28)  In  the  New  Testament  the  word  "passover" 
Ud(Tya,  has  three  significations.  (1)  It  means  the 
paschal  lamh,  as,  "And  the  first  day  of  unleavened 
bread,  when  they  killed  the  passover^^  (Mark  xiv. 
12).*  There  is  the  same  use  of  the  Hebrew  word  for 
passover  in  the  Old  Testament  (Ex.  xii.  21;  Deut.xvi. 
2,  5,  6).  There  is  the  same  use  of  the  Greek  word  in 
Joseph us.^  (2)  It  also  means  the  one  meal  called 
the  paschal  supper,  the  first  in  the  week  of  unleav- 
ened bread;  as,  "I  will  keep  the  passover  at  thy  house 
.  .  .  .  And  they  made  ready  the  passover"  (Matt, 
xxvi.  18,  19).'  The  Old  Testament  has  like  use  of  the 
word,  and  the  Septuagint  translates  the  Hebrew  by 
the  Greek  word  for  passover  (Ex.  xii.  48;  Num.  ix.  4, 
5).  With  this  meaning  Josephus  also  employs  the 
word.*  (3)  It  means,  further,  the  passover  festival 
itself,  or  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  lasting  seven 
days;  as,  "Now  ^tlie  feast  of  unleavened  bread  drew 
nigh,  which  is  called  the  passover"  (Luke  xxii.  1).^ 
And  Josephus  says  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread, 
the  seven  days,  "And  is  by  the  Jews  called  the  pass- 
over."^  Nothing  forbids  this  third  meaning  of  the 
word  "passover"  in  John  xviii.  28,  unless  the  word 
"eat"  confines  it  to  the  meaning  of  paschal  supper. 

^See  also,  Luke  xxii.  7;  1  Cor.  v.  7. 

2  Ant.  b.  iii.  ch.  x,  sec.  5.  ^  ggg  Luke  xxii.  8,  13;  Heb.  xi.  28. 

*  Ant.,  b.  ii.  ch.  xiv.  sec.  6. 

^  See  Luke  ii.  41,  43;  Matt.  xxvi.  2;  John  ii.  13;  vi.  4. 

^  Wars,  b.  ii.  ch.  i.  sec,  3, 


96  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

But  such  limitation  is  not  always  given  by  that  ex- 
pression. The  word  "eat"  is  employed  in  the  sense 
of  celebrate,  and  that  in  reference  to  this  same  festi- 
val: "And  they  did  eat  the  festival  seven  days"  (2 
Chron.  XXX.  22).  Such  is  the  literal  rendering.^  The 
word  "eat"  seems  to  have  been  used  in  preference  to 
the  word  "keep,"  because  the  act  of  eating  unleav- 
ened bread  was  prominent.  Therefore  the  passage  in 
question  (Johnxviii.  28)  does  not  necessarily  imply 
that  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ's  trial  and  cruci- 
fixion had  not  eaten  the  first  passover  meal  the  even- 
ing previous.  They  may  have  had  in  prospect  their 
voluntary  peace-offerings,  and  the  eating  therewith, 
w^hich  were  observed  by  private  individuals  and  fami- 
lies, particularly  on  the  first  day  of  the  passover 
week.  Such  offerings  were  provided  for  by  Jewish 
law  (Lev.  vii.  15,  16;  Num.  x.  10). 

The  foregoing  conclusion  is  strengthened  by  chron- 
ological calculations,  which  show,  that  in  the  year  of 
•  Kome  783,  of  Christ,  30  (really  34),  the  year  of  his 
crucifixion,  the  fifteenth  of  Nisan  fell  on  Friday.^ 
And  such  seems  now  to  be  the  trend  of  discussion. 
Dr.  Schaff  in  his  "  Apostolic  Church,"  published  in 
1853,  said,  "  While  this  Friday,  according  to  the 
synoptical  Gospels,  seems  to  have  been  the  fifteenth 
of  Nisan,  an  unbiased  interpretation  of  several  pas- 
sages in  the  Gospel  of  John  would  make  it  the  four- 
teenth."^ But  in  Lange  on  Matthew*  he  in  one 
sentence  favors  the  opposite  view,  and  in  Lange  on 

^Apostolic  Church,  p   193,  note.  ^15^(5^^  pp  4.55  455  uq^jq^ 

^  See  Robinson's  Eng.  Harmony,  notes,  p.  201. 
*  Wiesler  in  Hertzog's  Encyc.  xxi.  p.  550,  quoted  by  Dr.  SchaflE, 
Lange's  Com.,  John,  p.  563. 


THE  ''FIRST  DAY''  —THE  SACRED  DAY  97 

John,   published   in   1875,   he  still  more  favors  iV 
This  is  doubtless  a  change  in  the  right  direction. 

Did  the  fifty  days  reckoned  "from  the  morrow 
after  the  Sabbath "  (Lev.  xxiii.  15,  16),  include  the 
morrow  itself?  In  respect  to  this  question,  we  have 
seen,  that  different  men  have  reckoned  differently,^ 
but  we  do  not  find  that  they  themselves  have  noticed 
the  difference.  The  direction  is,  "And  ye  shall 
count  unto  you  from  the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath, 
from  the  day  that  ye  brought  the  sheaf  of  the  wave- 
offering;  seven  Sabbaths  shall  be  complete;  even  unto 
the  morrow  after  the  seventh  Sabbath  shall  ye  num- 
ber fifty  days"  (Lev.  xxiii.  15,  16).  The  Septuagint 
reads,  "  Ye  shall  number  to  yourselves  from  the  day 
after  the  Sabbath,  from  the  day  on  which  ye  shall 
offer  the  sheaf  of  the  heave^ offering,  seven  full  weeks'; 
unto  the  morrow  after  the  last  week  ye  shall  number 
fifty  days."  Does  this  language  mean  "  from"  in  the 
sense  of  after  the  day  on  which  the  wave=offering 
was  made,  or  from  in  the  sense  of  icitJi,  or  inclusive 
of  the  day  for  that  offering?  We  think  the  language 
is  not  decisive  of  that  question  in  either  the  Hebrew 
or  the  Septuagint.  We  have  in  this  Article  seen 
instances  of  both  the  inclusive  and  exclusive.^  Still, 
the  Scripture  phrase  seven  sabbaths  shall  be  com- 
plete," meaning,  or  at  least  implying,  seven  iveeJxS, 
seems  decidedly  to  favor  there  being  seven  complete 
weeks  after  thewave^offering,  and  before  the  pente- 
cost;  seven  weeks  exclusive  of  both  extreme  days.  The 
Targum  has  the  following;  "And  number  to  you 
after  the  first  feast  day  of  Pascha,  from  the  day  when 
you  brought  the  sheaf  for  the  elevation,  seven  weeks; 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  562,  563.  2  gee  pp.  90,  91.  ^See  p.  86. 

6 


98  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

complete  shall  they  be.  Until  the  day  after  the 
seventh  week  you  shall  number  fifty  days."  The 
phrase,  "  until  the  day  after  the  seventh  week," 
shows  that  pentecost,  at  one  extreme  was  not 
to  be  included;  and  we  may  well  infer,  it  would 
seem,  that  the  day  for  the  feast  of  first-fruits,  at  the 
other  extreme  was  also  not  to  be  included.  And 
the  phrase,  *'  complete  shall  they  be,"  still  further 
seems  to  indicate,  that  the  seven  weeks  were 
to  be  complete  without  either  of  the  two  feast= 
days  standing  at  the  extremes  of  the  weeks.  Turn- 
ing to  Josephus,  we  get  additional  light.  He 
speaks  of  the  festival  of  first=fruits,  of  the  wave= 
offering,  and  says,  "  When  a  week  of  weeks  has 
passed  over  after  this  sacrifice  (which  weeks  con- 
tain forty  and  nine  days),  on  the  fiftieth  day,  which 
is  pentecost,  etc."  ^  The  phrase  "  after  this  sacrifice" 
favors  excluding  the  day  of  the  wave  offering  in 
numbering  fifty  days.  Dr.  Robinson  says  that  pen- 
tecost was  "  seven  weeks  after  the  sixteenth  day  of 
Nisan ; "  ^  by  which  we  understand  him,  that  seven 
weeks  were  completed  after  that  day,  and  then  came 
pentecost;  seven  full  weeks  intervening  between  the 
first  day  of  passover  week  and  pentecost.  Dr  Rob- 
inson held  that  Christ's  crucifixion  was  on  the  fif- 
teenth of  Nisan,^  and,  that  being  Friday,  by  his 
view  pentecost  was  on  Sunday.  The  sixteenth  of 
Nisan  in  the  year  of  Christ's  death  being  the  day  of 
the  wave-offering  (Lev.  xxiii,  6-11),  and  being  also 

'Ant.,  b.  iii.  ch.  x.  sec.  6.   ^ Greek  and  English  Lexicon,  TZevrTj- 

XOffZT]. 

3 Harmony   of  Gospels,    notes;    also   Bib.  Sac.  Vol.  ii.,  Aug. 
1845. 


THE  ''FIRST  DAY"  —THE  SACRED  DAY  99 

Saturday,  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  counting  fifty  days 
after  that  day  we  come  to  Sunday  as  the  day  of 
pentecost. 

If  Friday,  the  day  of  crucifixon,  was  the  fourteenth 
of  Nisan,  as  some  hold,  and  the  first  day  of  unleaven- 
ed bread  was  Saturday,  the  fifteenth,  and  the  wave* 
offering,  it  being  the  second  day  of  the  feast,  was  on 
Sunday,  the  sixteenth,  then  numbering  fifty  days  in- 
clusive of  the  day  of  the  wave=offering,  would  bring 
the  day  of  pentecost  on  Sunday.  We  think  the 
former  reckoning  the  true  one,  but  either  is  pos- 
sibly correct.  We  feel  bound  to  have  in  mind  the 
fact  that  the  primitive  Christians  said  the  day  of  pen- 
tecost was  on  Sunday.  And  we  are  aiming  to  show 
that,  notwithstanding  all  disagreements  in  the  reck- 
oning made  by  different  scholars,  nothing  proves 
the  primitive  testimony  untrue. 

All  theories  having  any  probability  in  their  favor 
seem  to  be  adjustable  to  the  assertion  of  primitive 
church  history,  that  the  day  of  pentecost  in  the  year 
of  Christ's  death  came  on  Sunday,  and  was  ever  after 
observed  by  the  Christians  on  that  day.  It  is  a  very 
noteworthy  fact  in  the  series  of  first=day  events,  that 
the  new  dispensation,  so  far  as  can  be  decided,  open- 
ed on  Sunday,  and  not  on  Saturday. 

(c)  We  have  thus  far  considered  events  which  oc- 
curred within  less  than  fifty  days  after  Christ's  resur- 
rection. We  have  no  more  in  their  immediate  vicin- 
ity of  time  concerning  the  first  day.  We  must  wait 
to  see  whether  those  we  already  have,  in  connection 
with  others  unknown,  will  work  any  particular 
change  of  observance  in  sacred  days,  or  whether  those 
events,  having  passed  by,  will  stand  in  history  as  iso- 


100  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

lated  facts,  without  any  special  sequence.  But  we 
eagerly  pass  to  the  earliest  date  of  apostolic  or  evan- 
gelistic writings,  to  see  whether  we  discover  any  in- 
dications of  change.  The  first  three,  or  the  synoptic 
Gospels,  are  the  first  writings  of  that  kind  which  we 
may  expect  to  find.  They  were  written  between 
about  twenty = five  and  thirty=five  years  after  Jesus' 
resurrection,  and  John's  Gospel,  fifty  years  or  more 
after  that  event.  We  have  been  speaking  of  the 
"  first  day  of  the  week;  "  but  we  do  not  find  any  such 
expression  coming  from  the  Saviour's  lips,  or  from 
any  of  his  disciples  at  the  time  of  his  death.  He  had 
foretold  his  death  and  resurrection;  but  the  latter  he 
spoke  of  as  to  occur  on  the  "  third  day."  Each  of  the 
three  synoptic  Gospels  make  record  of  it;  Matthew 
(xx.  19)  and  Luke  (xviii.  33)  each  once,  and  Mark 
three  times  (viii.  31;  ix.  31;  x.  34).  The  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  heard  of  that  prophecy  of  his  the  next  day 
after  his  crucifixion,  and  made  it  the  basis  of  their 
request  of  Pilate  for  a  guard  to  be  stationed  at  his 
tomb  in  readiness  for  the  third  day  morning  (Matt, 
xxvii.  62-66).  The  angels  repeated  the  prophecy  to 
the  women  at  the  sepulchre  on  the  morning  of  the 
resurrection  (Luke  xxiv.  7).  The  two  disciples  going 
to  Emmaus  reminded  the  Saviour  of  the  "  third  day" 
on  which  he  was  to  rise  again  (Luke  xxiv.  21);  and 
he  spoke  of  it  himself  to  his  apostles  assembled  on 
the  evening  of  the  "third  day"  (Luke  xxiv.  46). 
Nine  several  times  the  evangelists  make  some  record 
respecting  that  "  third  day."  That  was  the  current 
phraseology,  then,  concerning  the  day  of  Christ's  re- 
surrection. It  was  the  "  third  day,"  not  "  first  day." 
But  when  from   twenty- five   to   fifty  years  have  wit- 


THE  -FIRST  DAY''—  THE  SACRED  DAY  101 

nessed  the  inauguration  of  the  Christian  dispensation, 
what  do  we  find?  Each  of  the  four  evangelists,  in 
his  account  of  Christ's  resurrection,  says  that  he  rose 
on  the  •'  first  day  of  the  week,"  and  Mark  and  John 
employ  that  term  twice  each  (Matt,  xxviii.  1;  Mark 
xvi.  2,  9;  Luke  xxiv.  1;  (John  xx.  1,  19).  Luke  in  his 
Gospel  four  times  mentions  the  prophecy  that  Christ 
would  rise  the  "  third  day  ";  yet,  from  twenty=five  to 
thirty  years  after  that  frequent  expression  used  at  the 
time  of  the  resurrection,  he,  in  both  his  Gospel  and 
treatise  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (Acts  xx.  7), 
speaks  of  the  "  first  day  "  as  though  it  were  a  phrase 
in  common  use,  and  dedicated  to  that  one  event.  And 
about  twenty^five  years  subsequent  to  Christ's  death 
the  apostle  Paul  uses  the  same  term,  "  first  day  "  (1 
Cor.  xvi.  2),  as  though  not  only  it  had  peculiar  sig- 
nificance, but  was  in  some  way  specially  observed 
at  that  time.  The  only  way  to  account  for  this 
change  of  historic  phrase,  from  "  third  day "  to 
"  first  day  "  and  for  this  occasional,  yet  incidental, 
mention  of  it  by  different  inspired  writers,  is  to  sup- 
pose that  it  was  already  a  noted  day  among  all  Chris- 
tians, and  was  well  understood  to  be  such.  And  the 
term  "  first  day  "  seems  to  imply  some  contrast  in  the 
ordinary  conceptions  of  the  people  between  that  and 
"  seventh  day ";  as  though  the  two  days  may  have 
been  observed  by  different  classes  in  some  special 
manner. 

(f)  When,  therefore,  we  come  to  read,  "upon  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  when  w^e  were  gathered  to 
gether  to  break  bread,  Paul  discoursed  with  them  " 
(Acts  XX.  7  ),  we  are  prepared  to  accept  the  natural 
implication  of  the  language,  that  on  the  "first  day" 


102  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

the  disciples  customarily  observed  the  Lord's  supper, 
and  held  other  religious  services.  That  inference  re- 
ceives additional  force  from  the  fact  that,  as  recorded 
in  the  previous  verse,  the  apostle  and  his  companions, 
having  come  to  Troas,  "tarried  seven  days";  as 
though  they  had  waited  for  the  usual  time  for  assem- 
bling. We  find  no  intimation  that  the  disciples  were 
called  together  for  a  special  occasion. 

The  evangelists  were  not  careful  always  to  mention 
the  same  things.  But  in  regard  to  so  important  an 
event  as  Christ's  resurrection  no  one  is  silent.  And 
no  one  fails  to  state  that  he  rose  on  the  "first  day  of 
the  week."  There  must  be  meaning  in  that  fact. 
And  just  about  then  when  they  record  it,  one  of  them 
also  records  that  the  latest  of  the  apostles  holds  a 
meeting  with  the  disciples  on  a  "first  day  of  the 
week."  He  does  not  speak  of  it  as  though  it  w^ere  an 
unusual  event.  At  that  meeting  a  sacrament  is  ob- 
served, which  was  instituted  in  that  series  of  events 
which  culminated  in  Jesus'  resurrection.  The  in- 
tent seems  to  be  to  bind  into  a  close  union  the  sacred 
commemoration  of  his  sufferings  and  death,  and  the 
celebration  of  his  victory  over  the  grave.  The  one  is 
placed  in  the  hours  of  the  other.  The  ordinance  is 
sacred;  the  day  seems  to  be  sacred.  And  we  find  this 
fact  in  a  line  of  events  all  of  which  conspire  to  give 
note  and  peculiarity  to  the  "first  day  of  the  week." 

Objection:  The  "first  day  of  the  week"  could  not 
have  been  regarded  as  sacred  or  religious,  because 
Paul  set  out  upon  a  journey  on  that  day.  Conybeare 
and  Howson  tell  us  that  the  meeting  at  Troas  was 
on  "  the  evening  which  succeeded  the  Jewish  Sab- 


THE  "  FIRST  DAY''—  THE  SACRED  DAY  103 

bath." '  Dr.  George  B.  Bacon  ^  and  many  others  have 
expressed  the  same  opinion.  Reply:  (1)  But  Cony- 
beare  and  Howson  admit  that  the  opposite  view  may 
be  correct,  and  quote  Greswell,  who  ''supposes  that 
they  sailed  from  Assos  on  the  Monday."  (2)  The 
question  whether  Paul  and  his  companions  journeyed 
from  Troas  on  Sunday  or  Monday  depends  upon 
whether  Luke  reckoned  by  Jewish  chronology,  or  by 
Roman,  or  Babylonian.  The  Jewish  commenced  and 
closed  the  day  at  sunset;  the  Roman,  at  midnight;^ 
the  Babylonian  and  Persian,  at  sunrise.*  If  the 
reckoning  was  either  Roman  or  Babylonian,  the  eve- 
ning in  question  belonged  to  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
and  the  morrow  to  Monday.  The  highest  authori- 
ties affirm  that  in  the  time  of  Christ,  Jewish  chronol- 
ogy had  become  modified  by  the  Roman.  ^  In  some 
things  it  was  the  one;  in  others,  the  other.  It  had 
also  become  affected  by  the  Babylonian. "  Passages 
in  the  Old  Testament  show  that  by  the  Jewish  reck- 
oning there  were  only  three  watches  in  the  night: 
the  first,  or '' beginning  of  the  watches"  (Lam.  ii. 
19),  the  ''middle  watch"  (Judg.  vii.  19),  and  the 
"morning  watch  "  (Ex.  xiv.  24;  1  Sam.  xi.  11).  But 
in  the  New  Testament  Matthew  speaks  of  the  "fourth 
watch  "  (xiv.  25),  and  the  Saviour,  of  four  sections  or 
watches  (Mark  xiii.  85).  Therefore  Christ  and  the 
apostolic  writers,  in  respect  to  night-watches,  used 

1  Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  Vol  ii.  p.  206. 
^Sabbath  Question,  p.  105. 
^Hegewisch  s  Introduction,  Chronology,  p.  18. 
*Ibid.,  pp.17,  71. 

^Smith's  Bible  Die,  "Chronology,  Day,"  p.  313;  Home's   In- 
troduction, Vol.  iii.  p.  162. 

^  Hegewisch's  Introduction  to  Chronology,  pp.  17,  71. 


104  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Roman  chronology;  for  the  Romans  had  four 
watches. ' 

But  some  will  object  that  the  Jews,  on  one  occa- 
sion, brought  their  sick  to  Christ  for  healing  on  the 
Sabbath,  as  the  "sun  was  setting,"  or  had  set  (Luke 
iv.  40;  Mark  i.  32;  Matt.  viii.  16).  This  they  would 
not  have  done  on  the  Sabbath  itself;  therefore  they 
kept  Jewish  time,  and  closed  the  day  with  sunset.^ 
Reply:  First,  they  may  have  been  only  the  more 
rigid  Pharisaic  Jews  that  would  not  bring  their  sick 
to  be  healed  on  the  Sabbath.  Secondly,  though  the 
Jews  of  Christ's  time  did  close  the  Sabbath  with  sun- 
set, that  does  not  prove  that  the  evangelists,  twenty^ 
five  or  fifty  years  afterwards,  reckoned  the  day  in  the 
same  manner^  when  writing  for  Christians,  chiefly 
converts  from  the  Gentiles,  who  reckoned  the  day  by 
the  Roman  method. 

A  mixed  chronology  prevailed  in  that  age,  espe- 
cially among  the  Jews.  Though  they  originally  com- 
menced the  day  of  twenty-four  hours  with  sunset, 
they  had  now  partly  adopted  the  Babylonian  method, 
and  spoke  of  the  lesser,  the  daylight  day,  as  com- 
mencing at  sunrise,  or  six  in  the  morning.  ''  Jesus 
answered,  Are  there  not  twelve  hours  in  the  day" 
(John  xi.  9)?  The  evangelists  use  the  same  natural 
day  in  speaking  of  the  hours  "  third,"  "  sixth," 
"ninth"  (Matt,  xxvii.  45;  Mark  xv.  25;  Luke  xxiii. 
44;  John  xix.  14)  when  Christ's  crucifixion  occurred. 
And  the  Greeks  and  Romans  also  often  reckoned  by 
the  lesser  day  of  twelve  hours,  extending  from  sunrise 

^  Smith  and  Barnum,  Bible  Die,  p.  1175. 
.  2  jiev,  W.  A.  Littlejohn,  Constitutional  Amendment,  p.  176, 


THE  "  FIRST  DAY''—  THE  SACRED  DAY  105 

to  sunset.^  With  such  reckoning,  it  was  natural  to 
speak  of  the  later  or  dusky  evening  as  part  of  the 
daylight  day  which  had  just  preceded  it.  A  conven- 
ient, though  varied,  chronology  was  in  the  ascend- 
ency. 

Did  Luke  use  Roman  chronology  in  his  account  of 
Paul's  visit  to  Troas?  The  following  reasons  indicate 
that  he  did:  (a)  He  wrote  mainly  of  and  for  Gen- 
tile Christian  congregations  in  the  Roman  empire, 
and  would  be  likely  to  use  their  chronology,  which 
was  Roman,  (/?)  The  meeting  at  Troas  was  held 
upon,  or  continued  into,  the  later  evening  of  that 
day;  the  day  had  already  some  signs  of  being  more 
or  less  sacred;  by  Jewish  reckoning  the  later  evening 
ruled  the  next  "morrow";  Paul  and  his  Christian 
companions  did  not  spend  that  morrow  sacredly; 
therefore  the  evening  previous  did  not  belong  to  the 
morrow;  and  the  chronology  was  not  Jewish.  The 
signs  of  sacredness  in  the  first  day  already  found  are, 
the  distinction  given  to  it  by  Christ,  by  his  evange- 
lists, by  Luke  in  this  case  under  consideration.  To 
which  should  be  added — what  occurred  even  earlier — 
Paul's  direction  to  have  certain  sacred  gifts  decided 
upon  and  set  aside  on  the  "  first  day  "  (1  Cor.  xvi.  2). 
That  by  Hebrew  reckoning  the  later  evening  ruled 
the  morrow,  and  made  it  sacred,  if  itself  were  sacred, 
is  shown  in  the  case  of  the  yearly  passover  supper. 
That  occurred  after  sunset,  and  was  the  beginning 
of  the  first  day  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread 
(Lev.  xxiii.  5,  6);  Deut.  xvi.  6-8).  "The  evening 
and  the  morning  were  the  first  day"  (Gen.  i.  5). 
Therefore,    if    the    time    of   the    meeting   at    Troas 

^  Lange  on  John  i.  39,  p.  93,  1st  col. 


106  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

were  at  all  sacred,  Luke  in  this  record  did  not 
use  Jewish  chronology,  (y)  The  series  of  noted 
events  that  occurred  during  the  day  of  Christ's  res- 
urrection commenced  in  the  morning,  and  not  in 
the  evening.  If  it  were,  as  some  claim,  the  even- 
ing next  following  the  Jewish  Sabbath  that  the 
meeting  was  held  in  Troas,  then  the  apostles  cel- 
ebrated that  wonderful  event  the  night  preceding  the 
morrow  or  day  of  the  week  on  which  it  occurred. 
That  is  altogether  improbable.  They  would  wait,  at 
least,  until  the  glad  morning  came;  they  would  not 
wish  to  commemorate  the  day  of  his  rising  from  the 
tomb  and  appearing  to  so  many  at  so  many  different 
times,  while  they  would  yet  have  to  say  that  the 
weekly  day  was  not  till  the  "morrow";^  and  there- 
fore, doubtless,  the  evening  of  that  meeting  belonged 
to  the  daylight  day  preceding  it,  and  not  to  the  one 
following  it;  and  the  chronology  used  was  Roman; 
and  the  next  morrow  was  Monday,  and  not  Sunday. 
(d)  The  apostle  John  probably  used  Roman  chronol- 
ogy in  describing  a  similar  meeting  subsequent  to 
Christ's  resurrection,  and  doubtless  while  writing 
more  for  Jewish  Christians  than  Luke  did  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles;  and  therefore  it  is  nearly  or  quite 
certain  that  Luke  employed  Roman,  and  not  Jewish 
chronology  in  the  case  now  under  consideration. 
John,  having  in  his  Gospel,  recorded  the  fact  of 
Christ's  resurrection,  says  that  he  came  and  stood  in 
the  midst  of  his  assembled  disciples,  "  the  same  day 
at  evening,  being  the  first  day  of  the  week  "  (John 
XX.  19).  It  was  the  evening  of  the  "first  day  of  the 
week"  (xx.  1).     Was  it  the  evening  of  the  first  day 

*  See  Discussion  on  "  Morrow,"  pp.  86,  87. 


THE  "FIRST  DAY"—  THE  SACRED  DAY  107 

by  Jewish  or  Roman  chronology?  The  answer  will 
depend,  in  part,  upon  whether  that  evening  was 
before  or  after  sunset.  It  was  after  sunset;  First, 
because,  as  the  doors  were  shut  "  for  fear  of  the 
Jews"  (vs.  19),  it  is  altogether  probable  that  they 
had  sought  shelter  under  the  shades  of  evening. 
Secondly,  because  the  two  disciples  who  that  day 
went  to  Emmaus,  and  communed  with  Christ  on  the 
way,  had  there,  "toward  evening  .  .  .  sat  at 
meat"  with  him  (Luke  xxiv.  29,  30),  then  had  trav- 
elled to  Jerusalem,  and  there  had  found  the  disciples, 
before  Jesus  stood  in  the  midst  of  them  (Mark  xvi. 
12-14).  It  cannot  reasonably  be  supposed  that  all 
this  was  done  previous  to  sunset.  Thirdly,  because 
the  disciples  at  Jerusalem  were  "  at  meat,"  at  their 
evening  meal,  when  Christ  appeared  among  them 
(Mark  xvi.  14).  And  the  Jews'  evening  meal  was 
not  usually  taken  until  their  day's  work  was  done, 
which  was  at  sunset.  .And  on  this  day,  so  full  of 
strange  events,  the  disciples,  in  fear  because  of  the 
Jews,  would  be  likely  to  take  their  evening  meal  later 
than  the  usual  time,  rather  than  earlier.  Fourthly,  it 
was  after  sunset,  the  later  evening,  because  the 
apostle  John  expressly  says  it  was  o(^>ta?  late,  the 
late  evening  (xx.  19),  when  Jesus  appeared  among 
his  disciples. 

Ohjection:  The  word  3(/'ta?  is  sometimes  applied 
to  hours  in  the  afternoon  previous  to  evening;  as, 
when  Christ  was  about  to  feed  five  thousand,  we 
read,  "  When  it  was  evening"  (Matt.  xiv.  15).  And 
it  could  not  have  been  as  late  as  sunset,  or  night^fall; 
for  the  people  were  in  a  desert  place,  and  returned  to 
their  homes  the   same  day,  after   being  fed.     Reply: 


108  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

The  word,  in  Greek  or  English,  is  used  relatively; 
and  when  the  five  thousand  were  fed  it  was,  no  doubt, 
late,  as  compared  with  the  forenoon;  the  latter  part 
of  the  afternoon  had  commenced.  In  the  same  pas- 
sage (vs.  23)  the  same  Greek  word  is  used  again,  sig- 
fying  the  time  when  Jesus  was  alone,  the  people  hav- 
ing departed,  and  he  having  gone  into  a  mountain  to 
pray.  The  idea  of  late,  in  whatever  language  express- 
ed, unlimited  and  undefined  by  anything  in  the  con- 
nection, would  signify  a  time  near  or  after  sunset,  or 
later  still.  Such  is  its  acknowledged  general  meaning. 
In  the  case  when  the  Saviour  appeared  to  his  apostles  on 
the  evening  of  his  resurrection,  instead  of  any  circum- 
stances indicating  that  it  was  only  about  the  middle 
of  the  afternoon,  there  are  several  showing  that  it  was 
as  late  as  what  all  nations  naturally  understand  by 
the  full  evening. 

By  Jewish  computation  there  were  two  evenings — 
one,  between  three  in  the  afternoon  and  sunset,  or 
about  six  o'clock;  and  one  after  sunset.  By  late, 
d(pia?  the  later  evening  would  certainly  be  meant, 
unless  something  in  the  connection  confined  it  to  the 
earlier.  And  all  Greek  linguists  seem  to  agree  that 
in  this  instance  the  later  evening  is  the  one  indicated; 
as  Robinson,  Lange,  Alford.  The  terms  "  earlier  " 
and  "  later  "  are  used  relative  to  each  other;  though 
by  Jewish  chronology  they  belonged  to  two  different 
days.  The  earlier  evening  would  not  be  after  sunset, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  day,  and  the  later  one 
in  the  afternoon,  at  the  close  of  the  Jewish  day,  but 
just  the  reverse;  the  two  evenings  that  touched  each 
other  at  six  o'clock  being  compared  with  each  other, 
and  the  one  coming  last  being  the  late  one. 


THE  "FIRST  DAY'*  —THE  SACRED  DAY  109 

When  Jesus  manifested  himself  to  his  disciples 
John  says  it  was  "  the  same  day  at  evening  [later 
evening],  being  the  first  day  of  the  week"  (John  xx. 
19).  The  later  evening,  belonging  to  the  first  day,  by 
Jewish  reckoning  was  the  evening  preceding,  Satur- 
day evening,  that  following  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 
Therefore,  if  Jewish  chronology  is  used,  this  meeting 
of  Christ  with  his  disciples  was  the  evening  before 
his  resurrection,  while  yet  his  body  lay  in  the  tomb. 
That  conclusion  is  absurd.  Therefore  the  inevitable 
inference  is,  that  not  the  Jewish,  but  the  Roman  or 
Babylonian,  chronology  is  employed  in  this  narrative; 
and  the  evening  of  the  first  day  was  the  same  as  our 
Sunday  evening;  and  the  morrow  after  that  evening 
was  Monday,  and  not  Sunday. 

In  this  meeting  of  Christ  with  his  apostles  at  Jeru- 
salem, we  have  a  key  of  interpretation  in  the  case  of 
the  meeting  at  Troas.  John  using  Roman  chronolo- 
gy to  describe  an  event  at  Jerusalem  which  occurred 
just  after  the  Redeemer's  resurrection,  there  is  no 
good  reason  to  suppose  that  Luke  employed  Jewish 
chronology  to  describe  an  event  thirty  years  after  at 
Troas,  far  towards  Rome  from  Jerusalem.  The 
meeting  at  Troas  was  certainly  in  the  evening  or  "the 
first  day  of  the  week,"  (Acts  xx.  7),  or  was  con- 
tinued into  the  evening  and  until  after  midnight. 
By  the  Roman  reckoning,  that  evening  belonged  to 
the  daylight  day  preceding;  the  next  day,  or  mor- 
row was  the  second  day  of  the  week  or  Monday. 
Paul  and  his  companions  travelled  from  Troas  to- 
wards Assos,  not  on  Sunday,  but  on  Monday,  and 
that  first  day  of  the  week  at  Troas  was  apparently 
and,  so  far  as  appears,  wholly   devoted  to  religious 


110  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

services;  it  would  seem,  according  to  the  usual  cus- 
tom. It  follows  that  this  passage  in  Acts  xx.  7  pre- 
sents a  strong  front  against  both  the  seventh^day 
Sabbatarians,  on  the  one  hand,  and  those  who  hold 
that  the  apostles  and  their  contemporaries  did  not 
religiously  observe  the  first  day,  but  practiced  secu- 
larity  upon  it,  on  the  other. 

(g)  The  next  notice  we  find  in  the  sacred  re- 
cord respecting  the  "  first  day  "  is  Paul's  direction 
to  the  church  at  Corinth:  "Upon  the  first  day  of 
the  week  let  each  one  of  you  lay  by  him  in  store 
as  he  may  prosper,  that  no  collections  be  made 
when  I  come  "  (1  Cor.  xvi.  2).  It  was  a  "  collection 
for  the  saints"  (vs.  1),  persecuted  and  poor,  at  Jeru- 
salem. It  was  in  part  a  return  for  the  noble  acts 
of  the  Christians  there,  who,  during  the  protracted 
continuance  of  pentecost,  to  supply  the  "  need "  of 
those  who  had  come  from  far^  freely  sold  their 
lands  and  houses,  and  brought  the  "  prices  and  laid 
them  at  the  apostles  feet,"  in  the  sacred  cause  of 
Christian  benevolence  (Acts  iv.  31-37).  Equally 
sacred  was  the  act  enjoined  upon  the  saints,  and  all 
the  saints  at  Corinth.  This  was  no  mere  secular  call 
or  business  transaction.  Each  one  was  directed  to 
decide  upon  and  set  aside  the  amount  of  his  gift 
at  home,  or  by  himself,  on  the  "  first  day."  Yet 
there  were  to  [be  "  gatherings,"  and  that  before  he 
came.  This  implies  collections,  and  some  one  place 
of  deposit, — a  church  treasury.  When  were  those 
"gatherings"  most  naturally  made?  "Upon  the 
first  day  of  the  week;  when  we  were  gathered  to- 
gether to  break  bread  "  (Acts  xx.  7).  This  is  ren- 
dered   nearly  or   quite  certain,  by  the  testimony  of 


THE  "  FIRST  "  DA  Y—  THE  SA  CRED  DA  Y  111 

Justin  Martyr,  born  only  about  forty  years  after 
this  writing  of  the  apostle  Paul.  In  his  account  of 
the  religious  services  held  by  Christians  on  Sunday, 
in  connection  with  that  part  relating  to  the  Lord's 
supper,  he  says:  "  They  who  are  well  to  do,  and 
willing,  give  what  each  thinks  fit;  and  what  is  col- 
lected is  deposited  with  the  president,  who  succors 
the  orphans  and  widows,  and  those  who  through 
sickness  or  any  other  cause  are  in  want,  and  those 
who  are  in  bonds,  and  the  stranger  sojourning 
among  us,  and,  in  a  word,  takes  care  of  all  who  are 
in  want."  ^  Paul's  injunction  and  Justin's  record 
evidently  refer  to  the  same  practice,  and  help  inter- 
pret each  other.  Paul  says,  "  Upon  the  first  day 
of  the  week  ";  Justin  describes  what  occurred"  upon 
the  first  day  of  the  week,"  Sunday.  Paul  prescribes 
for  the  need  of  the  afflicted  saints;  Justin  tells  what 
was  done  for  such.  Paul  says,  "  Let  every  one  of 
you  lay  by  him  in  store,"  judging  for  himself;  Jus- 
tin say,  "  They  who  are  well  to  do,  and  willing,  give 
what  each  thinks  fit;  "  Paul  speaks  of  "  gatherings  " 
of  the  gifts;  Justin  of  "what  is  collected."  Paul 
implies  that  there  was  some  depository  of  the  con- 
tributions; Justin  says  that  contributions  were  "de- 
posited with  the  president."  Paul's  direction,  or  a 
similar  one  given  by  all  the  apostles,  probably  gave 
birth  to  the  practice  recorded  by  Justin;  and  since 
in  Justin's  time  the  gifts  were  "  collected  "  on  Sun- 
day, so  doubtless  they  were  in  Paul's  time. 

{h)  Justin's  record,  and  Paul's  injunction  taken 
together,  would  lead  us  to  expect  allusions,  at  least, 
to  collections  for  the  poor  in  other  New  Testament 

^Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  ii.  pp.  65,  66. 


112  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

churches.  Accordingly,  we  find  that  the  apostle 
gave  the  same  "  order  to  the  churches  of  Galatia  "  (1 
Cor.  xvi.  1).  They  were  "  churches,"  more  than  one; 
Galatia  was  a  large  region.  The  injunction  to  the 
church  at  Corinth  began  thus:  "  Upon  the  first  day 
of  the  week."  Surely,  the  "  fore^front"  of  it  was  not 
omitted  in  the  "  order  to  the  churches  of  Galatia." 
They,  too,  were  to  attend  to  this  "  upon  the  first  day 
of  the  week." 

Further,  the  apostle  commended  the  example  of 
the  Corinthians  in  this  thing  to  the  believers  in 
Macedonia  (2  Cor,  ix.  1,  2),  and  that  not  in  vain,  for 
their  zeal  "stirred  up  very  many."  And  he  com- 
mended the  example  of  both  the  Corinthians  and 
Macedonians  to  the  saints  at  Rome  (Rom.  xv.  26). 
In  all  these  instances  the  contributions  were,  as  he 
says,  "  for  the  poor  among  the  saints  that  are  at 
Jerusalem."  All  for  the  same  object,  they  were  un- 
questionably all  to  be  taken  by  substantially  the 
same  measures.  A  specific  direction  that  the  money 
be  laid  aside  in  one  case  "  upon  the  first  day  of  the 
week,"  was  no  doubt  repeated  and  deemed  important 
in  all  cases.  It  was  a  part  of  their  religious  service, 
just  as  it  was  in  Justin's  day.  We  do  not  hear  of 
any  who  determined  to  do  it  on  the  seventh  day 
instead  of  the  first.  The  facts  increase  in  number, 
which  show  that  the  first  was  a  noted  and  special  day 
throughout  all  the  Christian  churches  of  Asia;  and  if 
there,  everywhere. 

Objection:  The  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the 
week  in  the  primitive  Christian  church,  arose  from 
the  spontaneous  feelings  and  judgment  of  the  early 
Gentile  churches  while  under  apostolic  supervision, 


THE  "FIRST"  DAY—  THE  SACRED  DAY  113 

and  did  not  commence  first  at  Jerusalem,  or  with 
Jewish  Christians.  Reply:  Why,  then,  do  we  not 
hear  of  some  difference  of  opinion  on  this  point 
between  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts?  Not  a  breath 
of  it  appears.  If  Sunday^keeping  arose  far  off 
among  the  Gentiles,  should  we  not  hear  of  some  dis- 
sent from  it  at  Jerusalem?  Some  Judean  professed 
believers,  hearing  of  the  work  among  the  Gentiles, 
went  down  to  them  from  Jerusalem  teaching  that 
circumcision  "  after  the  custom  of  Moses  "  (Acts  xv, 
1 )  was  necessary  to  salvation.  If  the  keeping  of  the 
Lord's  day  was  first  commenced  there  contrary  to 
custom  at  Jerusalem,  would  not  these  same  Jewish 
teachers  have  hastened  down  to  administer  correc- 
tion? The  question  concerning  circumcision  was 
respectfully  sent  back  from  the  region  of  the  Gen- 
tiles that  it  might  be  decided  by  the  church,  apostles, 
and  elders,  at  the  great  religious  centre.  If  the 
Lord's  day  were  not  already  observed  at  Jerusalem, 
would  not  a  similar  question  respecting  it  have  been 
sent  there  from  the  Gentile  Christians  for  decision? 
At  Jerusalem  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead;  at  Jerusalem 
appeared  to  so  many  on  the  day  that  he  rose;  at 
Jerusalem  appeared  to  the  eleven  on  the  next  return 
of  the  "  first  day  of  the  week";  at  Jerusalem  on  the 
day  of  pentecost,  on  the  Lord's  day,  fulfilled  his 
promise  to  send  the  Holy  Spirit.  At  Jerusalem  the 
great  foundation  facts  occured  on  which  is  based  the 
observance  of  Sunday  at  all.  And  the  cheering  and 
fruitful  idea  of  making  that  a  day  of  sacred  commem- 
oration, did  it  arise  not  at  Jerusalem,  but  far  away 
among  the  Gentiles?  It  is  certain  that  the  words 
"  first-day  of  the  week  "  became  consecrated  phrase- 
7 


114  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

ology  in  the  apostolic  churches.  Yet  the  apostle  and 
evangelist  Matthew  uses  that  language  (xxviii.  1); 
and  his  Gospel  was  first  written  of  the  four,  and  was 
written  especially  for  Jewish  converts  in  Palestine, 
and  he,  according  to  tradition,  resided  in  Jerusalem 
fifteen  years  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and 
wrote  his  Gospel  at  about  the  time  that  Paul  and 
Peter  were  founding  the  church  at  Kome.  It  ap- 
pears that  of  all  writings  extant,  his  was  the  first  to 
contain  the  expression,  "first  day  of  the  week,'*  as  ap- 
plied to  our  Lord's  resurrection.  Which  is  the  more 
probable:  that  the  early  church  used  that  phrase  as 
synonymous  with  Lord's  day,  and  the  latter  term  as 
in  some  sense  sacred,  contrary  to  the  view  and  prac- 
tice of  Matthew,  or  in  accordance  with  them?  And 
if  after  leaving  Jerusalem  he  preached  the  gospel  for 
a  period  in  othei;  parts,  as  tradition  states,  and  was 
thus  laboring  when  Paul  met  the  disciples  at  Troas 
on  the  "  first  day  of  the  week,"  and  gave  direction  to 
the  church  at  Corinth  to  set  aside  their  gifts  for  the 
poor  on  the  "  first  day  of  the  week,"  is  it  at  all 
probable  that  the  idea  of  keeping  the  first  day  sacred 
was  new  or  unacceptable  to  the  apostle  Matthew,  or 
to  Christians  with  him?  What!  did  Paul  give 
strict  instructions  to  various  Gentile  churches  to 
decide  upon,  and  set  apart  their  contributions  for  the 
poor  saints  at  Jerusalem,  "  upon  the  first  day  of  the 
week,"  and  those  saints  themselves  know  nothing 
about  observing  that  first  day,  or  receive  the  sugges- 
tion first  from  their  Gentile  brethren?  Did  Paul 
and  Barnabas  carry  up  the  new  project  of  keeping 
sacred  the  first  day,  when  they  went  from  the  Gen- 
tile churches  to  Jerusalem?     If  so,  strange  that  we 


THE  ''FIRST''  DAY—  THE  SACRED  DAY  115 

do  not  hear  about  it!  Professor  Stuart  says  that  the 
early  Christians  "  all  agreed  to  keep  holy  "  the  first 
day  of  the  week/  and  we  have  yet  to  learn  that  any 
real  evidence  to  the  contrary  anywhere  appears.  It 
will  not  be  wise  to  assume  or  suppose  that  there  is 
such  evidence  until  it  is  produced. 

Objection :  Jerome,  one  of  the  fathers,  seems  to  sanc- 
tion visiting  the  tombs  of  martyrs,  and  the  making 
of  garments  on  Sunday.  Reply:  Jerome  lived  near- 
ly three  centuries  after  the  apostles,  and  what  was 
approved  by  him,  or  practised  by  some  in  his  day, 
cannot  be  considered  as  having  ai3ostolic  sanction. 
Visiting  martyrs'  tombs  was  certainly  not  gross  dese- 
cration of  the  Lord's  day;  the  making  of  garments 
may  have  been  in  stress  of  circumstances  for  the  poor 
or  those  in  bonds,  and  not  a  usual  practice;  these 
things  may  have  been  only  in  Jeromes'  locality,  and  a 
laxness  in  observing  the  day  may  have  prevailed  in 
that  age  which  was  not  known  in  the  apostolic  period. 
This  does  not  constitute  proof  that  the  early  Chris- 
tians were  disagreed  about  keeping  the  first  day 
sacred.  Dr.  Hessey,^  who  quotes  Jerome  on  this 
point,  admits  that  the  testimony  of  that  Father  is  af- 
firmative and  positive  respecting  the  religious  ob- 
servance of  the  Lord's  day  in  the  early  centuries  of 
the  Christian  era. 

Objection  Second:  Macknight  says,  the  practice  of 
abstaining  from  labor  on  the  first  day  was  condemned 
by  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  a.  d.  364,  as  Sabbatizing.^ 
Many  others   have   followed   him   in   the   statement. 

»Com.,  Gal.  iv.  10. 

2  Sunday,  p.  74. 

3  Com.,  Col.  ii.  16,  p.  389. 


116  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Reply :  This  objection  seems  to  have  arisen  from  an 
error  in  reading.  What  the  Council  of  Laodicea  did 
condemn  was  Judaizing  on  the  seventh  day.  In  con- 
sequence they  decided  that  the  New  Testament  Scrip- 
tures as  well  as  the  Old  ought  to  be  read  at  religious 
services  whenever  held  on  the  seventh  day,  and  that 
labor  ought  not  to  be  wholly  abstained  from  on  that 
day.  Their  decision  in  substance  w^as  just  the  oppo- 
site of  Macknight's  statement.  Authority  for  this 
representation  is  given  by  Neander/  Eadie,^  and  the 
act  of  the  Council  itself.^ 

(i)  The  instance  at  Troas  is  the  first  mention  of 
the  first  day  of  the  week  in  connection  with  a  Gentile 
congregation.  Other  instances  are  those  relating  to 
the  church  at  Corinth,  to  the  churches  of  Galatia, 
Macedonia  and  Rome.  The  Christian  Gentiles,  hav- 
ing Christ's  resurrection  as  the  foundation  of  their 
hope  and  joy,  and  his  resurrection  day  as  the  time  for 
many,  at  least,  of  their  religious  assemblies,  and  not 
having  had  the  custom  of  observing  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath, it  is  nearly  or  quite  certain  that  their  one  sacred 
festival  day  was  the  first  of  the  week.  This  occasion 
at  Troas  was  about  twenty- five  years  after  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ.  And  the  Pauline  instructions  to 
the  churches  of  Galatia,  Achaia,  Macedonia  and 
Rome,  were  at  about  the  same  period.  All  evidence 
bearing  on  the  subject  is,  that  the  disciples  then  regu- 
larly met  on  the  first  day;  and  since  it  is  known  that 
the  inspired  teachers  exhorted  and  commanded  regu- 

^  Church  Hist.  (London  ed.)  Vol.  iii.  p.  422. 
2Com.,  Col.  ii.  16. 

3  Canon,   xxix.  Morris's  Lib.    Fathers,  St.    Ephrem,    p.  391. 
note. 


THE  ''FIRST''  DAY—  THE  SACRED  DAY  117 

lar  attendance  on  stated  worship  (Heb.  x.  25),  the 
time  for  it  in  general,  with  the  Gentiles  at  least,  must 
have  been  on  that  day.  One  of  the  strongest  evi- 
dences that  the  first  day  of  the  week  was  then  ob- 
served by  the  Christians  through  some  divine  author- 
ity, is  this:  The  Gentile  believers  had  been  unaccus- 
tomed to  the  sacred  observance  of  a  septenary  divi- 
sion of  time,  and  now,  for  some  reason,  clearly  seem 
to  have  been  wont  to  attend  the  Lord's  supper,  and 
to  set  aside  aside  sacred  gifts,  "  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week."  No  ordinary  cause  could  have  produced 
such  a  revolution.  And  with  inspired  men  for  their 
religions  teachers,  how  they  could  have  made  such  a 
change  without  supposed  divine  authority  is  incom- 
prehensible. Further,  their  religious  teachers  being 
known  to  them  as  having  wrought  miracles,  and  as 
professedly  speaking  by  divine  inspiration,  how 
those  Christians  could  have  been  led  to  suppose  that 
they  had  divine  authority  for  keeping  the  first  day, 
unless  they  really  had  it,  is  equally  incomprehens- 
ible. 

Objection:  ''The  Lord  instructed  his  disciples 
that  the  Sabbath  would  exist  at  least  forty  years 
after  his  death;  since  he  taught  them  to  pray  con- 
tinually that  their  flight  at  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, which  occurred  A.  D.  70,  might  not  take  place 
on  that  day  "  (Matt.  xxiv.  20).'  Rephj :  First,  the 
gates  of  all  cities  were  closed  on  at  least  the  week- 
ly Sabbath,  and  travelling  on  those  days  could  be 
only  with  the  greatest  difficulty.  Hence  the  prayer 
that  their  flight  might  not  be  in  such  unfavorable 
circumstances.     Secondly,  if  travelling  on  the  Sab- 

^  W.  H.  Little  John,  Constitutional  Amendment,  p.  65. 


118  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

bath  were  in  all  circumstances  inherently  wrong,  the 
Saviour  would  not  have  given  conditional  permis- 
sion for  it  by  enjoining  prayer  that  if  possible  it 
might  be  prevented.  Thirdly,  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
did  exist  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  though 
among  Christians  chiefly  superseded'  by  the  first 
day,  and  strict  Jews  and  Jewish  authorities  still  in 
power  would  interpose  many  obstacles  to  the  flight 
of  Christians  or  others  on  the  seventh  day. 

(j)  Tracing  the  course  and  instructions  of  the 
apostle,  we  find  that  the  Christians  of  his  time  had 
special  religious  services  of  their  own,  separate 
from  those  of  the  Jews.  Giving  directions  respecting 
the  incestuous  person,  the  apostle  Paul  says:  "Ye 
being  gathered  together"  (1  Cor.  v.  4).  Speaking 
of  abuses  that  had  crept  into  the  observance  of  the 
Lord's  supper  by  the  church  at  Corinth, — certainly 
a  meeting  separate  from  the  Jews, — he  says:  "Ye 
come  together  not  for  the  better  .  .  .  When  ye 
come  together  in  the  church  .  .  .  When,  therefore, 
ye  assemble  yourselves  together  in  one  place  "  ( 1  Cor. 
xi.  17,  18,  20).  Writing  concerning  the  exercise 
of  spiritual  gifts,  he  remarks:  "  In  the  church  I 
had  rather  speak  five  words  with  my  understanding 
.  .  .  If  therefore  the  whole  church  be  assembled 
together  .  .  .  When  ye  come  together  .  .  . 
If  there  be  no  interpreter,  let  him  keep  silence  in 
the  church  "  (1.  Cor.  xiv.  19,  23,  26,  28).  Speaking 
of  women,  he  says:  "Let  your  women  keep  silence 
in  the  churches  .  .  .  It  is  a  shame  for  a  woman 
to  speak  in  the  church  "  (1  Cor.  xiv.  84,  85).  In  all 
these  instances  they  must  have  been  Christian,  and 
not  Jewish,  assemblies.     The  apostles  ordained  elders 


THE  "  FIRST  ''DAY—  THE  SA  CRED  DA  Y  119 

in  the  churches  (Acts  xiv.  23),  which  must  have 
been  in  Christian,  and  not  Jewish,  assemblies. 
Apostles  and  Christians  met  for  consultation  and  ad- 
vice (Acts  XV.  4,  6,  23;  xx.  17,  28),  which  must  have 
been  in  meetings  by  themselves.  Each  church  was 
regarded  as  a  *' flock"  (1  Pet.  v.  2,  3),  a  company, 
and  they  could  not  have  been  without  meetings 
distinctively  their  own.  They  must  have  had  their 
assemblies  or  synagogues  of  worshippers,  under  the 
superintendence  of  their  own  church  officers  (James 
ii.  2,  3).  In  the  nature  of  the  case,  these  meetings 
of  Christians  could  not  have  been  held  ordinarily 
at  the  time  of  Jewish  asssemblies  for  the  Christians 
frequently  attended  the  latter  (Acts  v.  42;  xviii.  4: 
xix.  8),  and  desired  the  Jews  to  attend  their  religious 
services  (1  Cor.  xiv.  23). 

When,  therefore,  were  these  distinctively  Christian 
meetings  held?  We  have  no  trace  that  one  of  them 
was  held  on  the  seventh  day.  We  have  positive 
evidence  that  one  or  more  were  held  on  the  first 
day,  with  many  probabilities  that  that  was  the  chief 
day  for  all  Christian  assemblies  (Acts  xx.  7;  1  Cor. 
xvi.  2,  etc).  The  only  day  named  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment for  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  supper  after 
its  institution  is  the  first  day  of  the  week.  Con- 
tributions for  the  poor  were  determined  upon  and  set 
aside,  and  probably  collected  on  that  day.  Natural- 
ly, even  if  not  by  command,  the  chief  Christian  as- 
semblies would  cluster  upon  some  one  day  of  the 
week.  Those  distinctive  assemblies  must  have  been 
numerous,  and  all  the  probabilities  are  that  their 
special  day  was  the  first,  and  not  the  seventh,  of  the 
week. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  "lord's  day"  COMES  TO  BE  THE  CHRISTIAN 
SABBATH. 

Within  about  thirty  or  thirty-five  years  after 
the  date  of  Luke's  treatise  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  of  Paul's  first  Epistle  to  the  church  at  Cor- 
inth, the  first  day  of  the  week,  as  we  learn  from  the 
apostle  John  (Rev.  i.  10),  had  come  to  have  a  dis- 
tinctive and  sacred  title, — the  "  Lord's  day," — just  as 
the  commemorations  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ  had  come  to  have  the  sacred  title  of  "  Lord's 
supper"  (1  Cor.  xi.  20).  It  was  the  Lord's  supper, 
because  he  gave  it,  and  it  commemorated  his  propi- 
tiatory death;  it  was  the  Lord's  day  because  he 
gave  it,  and  it  commemorated  his  triumph  over 
death  and  hell.  He  gave  the  supper  in  person,  be- 
fore his  death;  he  evidently  gave  the  day  in  person, 
after  his  death,  by  rising  upon  it,  by  appearing  so 
much  upon  it,  by  producing  in  some  way  such  an 
impression  that  the  apostles  and  disciples  immedi- 
ately began  to  observe  it,  and  appointed  the  most 
precious  of  all  their  religious  services,  the  Lord's 
supper,  upon  it. 

Objection :  By  the  Lord's  day  may  have  been  meant 
Easter=day,  on  which  the  Lord's  resurrection  was  an- 
nually celebrated.     Reply:  None  of  the  early  fathers 

120 


THE  ■  LORDS  DA  V"  —  THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBA  TH     121 

use  the  phrase  with  that  meaning;  and,  since  the  day 
in  the  year  for  Easter  was  a  long  time  in  question, 
the  apostle  John  did  not  refer  to  a  doubtful  day  in 
addressing  the  churches  on  so  important  a  matter. 

Objection  second:  The  apostle  may  have  been 
speaking  of  the  Sabbath,  and  may  have  given  it  a 
designation  similar  to  that  in  Isa.  Iviii.  13:  "  my  holy 
day."'  Reply:  If  John  meant  the  Sabbath,  he 
would  doubtless  have  called  it  by  its  usual  name. 
The  early  fathers  used  the  term  "  Lord's  day "  for 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  copying,  no  doubt,  from  the 
apostle.  They  also  were  careful  to  distinguish  be- 
tween Sabbath  and  Lord's  day;  and  we  should  not 
expect  that  their  teacher,  the  apostle,  would  use  a 
term  of  confusion,  as  he  did  if  by  Lord's  day 
he  meant  the  Sabbath.  Besides,  the  phraseology  for 
Lord's  day,  in  this  case,  is  peculiar  to  itself,  as  we 
shall  see.  It  is  never  used  elsewhere  for  the  seventh- 
day  Sabbath,  either  in  the  Greek  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment or  that  of  the  new.  It  is  mere  groundless  as- 
sumption to  say  that  it  here  means  the  Sabbath. 

Objection  third:  By  the  Lord's  day  the  apostle 
meant  the  day  of  judgment,  often  designated  "the 
day  of  our  Lord"  (1  Cor.  i.  8  ),  "  the  day  of  the  Lord  " 
(1  Cor,  V.  5;  1  Thess.  v.  2;  2  Pet.  iii.  10),  ''the  day 
of  the  Lord  "  (2  Thess.  ii.  2).  Reply:  John  evidently 
speaks  of  a  literal  day;  Peter  and  Paul,  quite  as  evi- 
dently, of  a  great  event,  occupying  more  than  a  com- 
mon day.  The  latter  speak  of  a  day  in  the  unknown 
future;  while  John  speaks  of  one  in  the  known  past. 
If  Peter  and  Paul  referred  to  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem,— which  is  nearly  impossible, — that  does  not  an- 

1  Andrews'  History  of  the  Sabbath,  pp.  188-192. 


122  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

swer  to  the  day  which  John  had  for  meditation  and 
visions.  Moreover  the  phraseology  of  John  is,  A'upt- 
axfj  'H/iipd;  while  that  of  the  other  apostles  is,  'H/xipa 
Kupiou,  or  the  like;  the  adjective  form,  Koptaxfj, 
being  used  in  the  former  instance,  and  never  in  the 
latter  in  Scripture,  pertaining  to  day,  except  in  this 
case;  which  distinction  the  fathers  also  carefully  ob- 
serve. 

On  "  the  Lord's  day  "  John  was  "  in  the  Spirit " 
(Rev.  i.  10),  as  if  there  w^ere  some  similarity  between 
that  and  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  on  the  day  of 
pentecost.  On  that  day  the  Lord  appeared  to  the 
beloved  apostle,  and  spake  to  him  (Rev.  i.  10-18), 
much  as  he  appeared  to  Mary  Magdalene  and  the 
other  women,  to  the  two  that  went  to  Emmaus,  to 
Cephas  and  to  the  ten,  on  the  original  first  day;  but 
more  gloriously  to  Jolin  alone,  the  last  of  the  twelve 
on  earth.  On  that  day  the  Savior  communicated  to 
the  apostle  much  or  all  of  the  book  known  as  the 
Revelation  by  John,  thus  still  more  signalizing  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  Neander,  referring  to  the 
early  "  special  observance  of  Sunday  in  place  of  the 
Sabbath,"  says:  "The  first  intimation  of  this  change 
is  in  Acts  xx.  7,  where  by  the  Lord's  day  can  hardly 
be  understood  the  day  of  judgment."  ^ 

That  the  Lord's  day  was  one  in  special  honor  to 
Christ  the  Lord  is  indicated  by  usage  in  similar  cases. 
The  phrase  "  Lord's  supper  "  (1  Cor.  xi.  20)  indicates 
a  special  supper  in  memory  and  honor  of  the  Lord; 
the  phrase  "  Table  of  the  Lord"  (1  Cor.  x.  21)  indi- 
cates  a  table  spread  to  his  honor;  that  of  "apostles 
of  Christ "  means  apostles  devoted  to  his  service  and 

1  Church  History,  Vol.  i.  p.  295. 


THE  •'  LORDS  DAY'  —  THE  CHKISTIA N  SA BBA  TH     1 23 

honor;  that  of  "Lord's  house"  (Ps.  cxvi.  19)  means 
a  house  dedicated  to  his  glory:  that  of  ''  feasts  of  the 
Lord"  (Lev.  xxiii.  4)  implies  the  same  honor  to  him; 
and  "Lord's  day"  (Rev.  i.  10)  must  mean  a  day  in 
special  honor  of  the  Lord. 

We  have  in  these  various  citations  from  Scripture 
incontestible  evidence  that  the  first  day  of  the  week 
was  at  least  one  of  special  and  sacred  significance 
and  observance  to  the  apostles,  and  to  Christians  con- 
temporary with  them.  What  Christian  having  knowl- 
edge of  these  facts  could  consent  not  to  keep  the 
Lord's  day?  If  to  some  not  enough  seems  to  be  said 
on  the  subject  in  the  New  Testament,  let  them  recall 
how  little  is  said  in  the  apostolic  writings  on  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  supiDer.  The  latter  institutions  are 
brought  down  to  us  in  a  connected  chain  of  Christian 
example  from  the  apostles  themselves,  and  not  less  so 
the  sacred  Lord's  day.  The  evidence  acquires  much 
strength  from  the  fact  that  nowhere  among  the  Chris- 
tians immediately  succeeding  the  apostles  appears 
any  doubt  or  neglect  about  observing  the  first  day  of 
the  week. 

Ohjcdion:  The  apostle  Paul  gives  countenance  to 
the  theory  and  practice  of  not  observing  one  day 
more  than  another.  He  says:  "  One  man  esteemeth 
one  day  above  another;  another  esteemeth  every  day 
alike.  Let  each  man  be  fully  assured  in  his  own 
mind"  (Rom,  xiv.  5).  Reply:  The  reference  is  to 
Jewish  days  and  ceremonies,  and  not  the  least  to  the 
Lord's  day.  For,  just  preceding  (vs.  1),  doubtful 
disputations  are  spoken  of,  and  no  evidence  appears 
tiiat  there  was  any  disputation  about  keeping  the 
Lord's  day.     Next  (vs.  2,  3),  questions  about  eating 


124  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

"herbs"  and  eating  "all  things"  are  spoken  of;  and 
those  were  Jewish  questions,  and  not  Christian,  ex- 
cept as  it  was  important  that  the  Christian  conscience 
should  get  released  from  superstitions  concerning  them. 
Then  the  observing  of  days  is  classed  with  eating  or 
not  eating,  and  both  were  Jewish.  The  passage 
teaches  that  the  observing  of  such  Jewish  ceremonies 
and  days  is  optional.  But  Alford  says:  "  I  therefore 
infer  that  sabbatical  obligation  to  keep  any  day, 
whether  seventh  or  first,  was  not  recognized  in  apos- 
tolic times."  ^  Yet  he  does  not  disclaim  all  obliga- 
tion to  observe  the  Lord's  day.  But  concerning  the 
claim  that  Rom.  xiv,  5  refers  to  Jewish  days  only,  he 
declares  that  it  is  "a  quibble  of  the  poorest  kind." 
We  need  not  be  moved  by  this  assertion;  since  the 
more  accurate  Ellicott,  referring  to  Alford's  remark, 
says:  "It,  however,  can  scarcely  be  considered  exe- 
getically  exact  to  urge  this  verse  against  any  theory  of 
a  Christian  Sabbath,  when  the  apostle  is  only  speak- 
ing of  legal  and  Judaizing  observances."  ^ 

The  attempt  has  been  made  by  modern  review 
writers,  as  also  hy  Bishop  Hooper  more  than  three 
centuries  ago,^  to  render  the  Greek  phrase  et?  /jLtav 
<7a[^ftdz(ov  (Matt,  xxviii.  1,  and  in  parallel  pas- 
sages) "on  one  of  the  Sabbaths";  thence  inferring 
that  the  New  Testament  writers  recognized  as  a  Sab- 
bath the  first,  as  well  as  the  seventh,  day  of  the  week. 
That  construction  ignores  Hebraistic  usage,  which 
was  to  date  each  day  of  the  week  from  the  Sabbath; 
and  read,  for  our  Sunday,  first  day  after  the  Sabbath, 

^  New  Test,  for  English  Readers,  Rom.  xiv.  6. 

2  Com.  Gal.  iv.  10. 

3  Early  Writings,  p.  342. 


THE  '•  LORDS  DAY"  —  THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBA TH    125 

or  between  the  Sabbaths;  for  our  Monday,  second 
day  after  the  Sabbath;  and  so  on  through  the  six 
days.  This  attempt  to  find  the  first  day  of  the  week 
recognized  by  the  New  Testament  writers  as  one  of 
the  Sabbaths  is  defeated  by  the  fact  that  Jewish 
writers,  as  in  the  Tahnud,  uniformly  designate  the 
first,  second,  etc.,  day  of  the  week  by  giving  the  re- 
quired numeral,  and  following  it  the  word  for  Sab- 
bath, as  in  the  Greek  phrase  before  us.^  They  seem 
to  have  had  no  other  way  for  specifying  any  day  of 
the  w^eek,  except  the  Sabbath.  The  fact  that  the 
plural  for  Sabbath  is  used  indicates  either  the  two 
Sabbaths  at  the  tw^o  extremes  of  the  six  days,  or  a 
transfer  of  the  Aramaean  form,  or  a  plural  of  distinc- 
tion, after  the  analogy  of  the  names  of  festivals.' 
The  plural  is  certainly  sometimes  used  when  only  one 
Sabbath  is  referred  to  (Matt.  xii.  1;  Luke  iv.  16;  See 
13:10).  The  foregoing  Jewish  method  of  designat- 
ing the  days  of  the  w^eek  seems  to  have  prevailed 
long  before  Christ  came  and  by  his  resurrection  sig- 
nalized the  first  day  of  the  week.  Previous  to  that 
the  first  day  could  not  have  been  thought  of  as  a 
Sabbath.  A  passage  illustrating  the  ancient  usage 
occurs  in  Justin  Martyr's  Dialogue  with  Trypho. 
Justin  speaks  of  Christ's  resurrection  as  occurring  on 
the  first  day  after  the  Sabbath,  jj-ia  zwv  aa^^dzxw^j} 
If  we  render  this  "  in  one  of  the  Sabbaths,"  as  some 
would,  we  are  in  immediate  difficulty.  Justin  is  en- 
deavoring to  tell  on  what  day   the  resurrection  oc- 

^  See  Lightfoot's  Horae  Heb.  et  Tal.  on  Matt,  xxviii.  1. 
2  Winer's  ISewTest.  Grammar,  pp.  176,  177. 
^Patrologiae,  Tom.  vi.  p.  566.     Dialogus  cum  Tryphone  Ju- 
daeo,  c.  41;  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  ii.  p.  139. 


126  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

curred,  and  by  that  rendering  he  simply  says  it  was 
on  one  of  two  days.  Besides,  in  the  next  sentence  he 
repeats  the  same  phrase,  and  adds  concerning  the 
day,  remaining  {ixi'Mmpa)  the  first  or  chief  (7:pu>T7j). 
If  he  means,  ''one  of  the  Sabbaths,"  which  one?  If 
he  means  the  first  after  the  Sabbath,  that  is  intelligible. 
That  he  did  mean  the  first  after  the  Sabbath,  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  he  immediately  says,  "  It  is 
called,  however,  the  eighth  ("V'^'''^/)-"  Justin  must 
have  written  this  within  less  than  a  century  after  the 
Gospels  were  written,  only  forty  or  fifty  years  after 
the  apostle  John's  death,  and  the  passage  makes  the 
usage  of  that  time  very  evident.  Besides,  the  mean- 
ing cannot  be  one  Sabbath  of  the  Sabbaths,  because 
aafi^dnr^  is  neuter,  and  iiU  feminine.  It  must  be  one 
day  {rjij.l(ja)  of  the  Sabbaths,  which  is  awkward  and 
improbable;  or  else  one  day  after  the  Sabbath,  or  the 
first  between  the  Sabbaths,  either  of  which  is  natural 
and  probable. 

We  now  turn  to  ask.  What  were  the  example 
and  precept  of  the  apostles  respecting  the  seventh 
day?  Their  continuing  for  a  time  after  pentecost  to 
attend  meetings  of  the  Jews  on  that  day  is  no  proof 
that*  they  regarded,  and  would  continue  to  regard,  the 
seventh  as  the  more  sacred  in  the  new  dispensation. 
The  fact  that  no  record  appears  of  their  holding  a 
distinctively  Christian  service  on  the  seventh  day, 
while  it  does  appear  that  they  held  such  services  on 
the  first  day,  indicates  that  there  was  probably  a 
change  in  respect  to  the  sacredness  of  the  two  days; 
and  we  may  w^ell  look  for  some  evidence  that  the  sev- 
enth day  had  lost  its  strong  hold  upon  the  intelligent 
and  unbiased  Christian  mind. 


THE  "  LORDS  DA  F  "  —  THE  CHRISTIAN  SA  BE  A  TH     127 

Does  such  evidence  appear?  Turn  to  Col.  ii.  16: 
"  Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat,  or  in  drink, 
or  in  respect  of  a  feast  day,  or  of  a  new  moon,  or  of  a 
Sabbath  day."  Much  depends  upon  the  meaning  of 
this  one  verse.  Two  quite  different  classes  unite  in 
holding  that  the  word  "Sabbaths"  {na^S^idrw'^)  does 
not  refer  to  the  seventh=day  Sabbath,  but  to  other 
Jewish  festivals.  They  are,  first,  the  seventli=day 
Sabbatarians,  who  contend  that  their  Sabbath  cannot 
be  meant;  and  secondly,  those  who  sacredly  observe 
the  Lord's  day  under  the  impression  that  if  in  the 
New  Testament  any  release  is  given  from  observing 
the  day  there  called  ''Sabbaths,"  it  negatives  all 
argument  to  show  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  the 
Christian  Sabbath.  A  third  class  hinge  much  on 
this  verse,  to  show  that  the  fourth  commandment  is 
abrogated.  We  deem  all  three  classes  wrong.  Who- 
ever may  be  wrong,  and  whatever  the  true  interpreta- 
tion, this  passage  is  the  Rosetta  stone  of  the  new  dis- 
pensation on  the  Sabbath  question.  It  has  not  a  tri= 
lingual  inscription,  like  the  Egyptian  stone  found  at 
Rosetta,  but  receives  a  tri-lingual  application.  And 
as  that  ancient  stone  contained  the  elements  of  a  key 
to  the  hieroglyphics  in  Egypt,  so  this  text,  by  its 
true  meaning,  has  a  key  to  the  right  understanding 
of  the  Scriptures  pertaining  to  the  Sabbath.  Some 
seventh=day  Sabbatarians  acknowledge  that  if  the 
word  ''Sabbaths"  in  this  verse  does  refer  to  the  sev- 
enth day,  then  that  settles  the  case  against  them. 
And  all  non=  Sabbath  Lord's  day  men  might  well  ac- 
knowledge that  if  this  verse  does  not  teach  that  the 
fourth  commandment  is  abolished,  then  the  case  is 


128  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

settled  against  them.  If  its  help  is  denied  them, 
they  cannot  sustain  their  opinion. 

Andrews  ^  and  other  seventh  day  Sabbatarian  au- 
thors, in  their  endeavor  to  show  that  ''Sabbaths" 
means  Hebrew  festivals  other  than  the  weekly  Sab- 
bath, are,  unfortunately  for  the  truth,  we  think,  able 
to  ally  important  names  to  their  cause.  There  do 
join  them  eminent  Lord's  day  Sabbath  advocates. 
These  scholars  vary  in  the  degree  of  positiveness  with 
which  they  hold  their  opinions  on  this  point;  but 
among  those  who  more  or  less  entertain  them  are  the 
following:  Albert  Barnes,^  Dr.  Justin  Edwards,^  Dr. 
Pond,*  President  Timothy  Dwight,^  Professor  Moses 
Stuart,^  and  apparently  Dr.  Charles  Hodge.'  And  it 
is  no  small  item  in  the  conception  of  the  seventh-day 
Sabbatarians  that  two  noted  publishing  societies  come 
to  the  aid  of  their  opinions  on  this  question:  the 
American  Tract  Society,  in  two  publications,^  and  the 
Congregational  Publishing  Society.^ 

If  the  interpretation  of  the  foregoing  authors  is 
correct,  then  where  is  there  aught  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  release  us  from  observing  the  seventh  day 
still,  even  though  we  also  keep  the  Lord's  day?  That 
they  are  not  correct, — that  the  word  <r«/?/Sara>v  in  Col. 

^Hist.  Sab.  pp.  87,  138,  159. 

2  Com.,  Col.  ii.  16.  pp.  306,  307. 

^Com.  Fam.  Test.,  p.  328;  Sab.  Manual,  pp.  135,  136. 

*  Christian  Theology,  p.  631, 
5  Theology,  Vol.  iii.  p.  258. 
^Com.,  Rom.  xiv.  5. 

^  Systematic  Theology,  Vol.  iii.  p.  832, 

8  Family  Test.,  with  notes,  Col.  ii.  16;  New  Test.,  with  notes, 
Col.  ii.  16. 

*  Dr.  Pond's  Theology,  p.  631. 


THE  "  LORD'S  DA  Y  ''—THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBA TH    129 

ii.  16  does  not  refer  to  ceremonial  feast  days,  but  to 
the  weekly  Sabbath,— seems  to  be  certain  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons:  1.  Another  word  in  the  verse,  that  for 
"feast  day"  {^»p'^^i)  means  feast;  is  in  numerous  in- 
stances used  to  signify  feast;  is  apjplied  to  the  Jewish 
ceremonial  feasts  (to  the  passover,  Luke  ii.  41;  John 
xiii.  1;  to  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  John  vii.  2,  8,  10, 
11,  14,  37;  feasts  not  specified.  Matt.  xxvi.  5;xxvii.  15; 
Mark  xiv  2;  xv.  6;  Luke  xxiii.  17;  John  iv.  45);  is 
translated  "feast"  in  the  twenty-seven  instances  of 
its  occurrence  in  the  New  Testament,  except  in  this 
one  case  of  Col.  ii.  16,  and  ought  to  be  so  translated 
here  and  is  in  the  revised  version.  The  Lord  seems 
not  to  have  inspired  men  to  use  two  words  with  pre- 
cisely the  same  meaning  in  the  same  catalogue  of 
ceremonial  days  or  other  objects,  and  inspired  men 
seem  not  to  have  done  it.  2.  The  word  fraiSiSdra}'^, 
though  frequently  occurring,  does  not  in  any  other 
instance  in  the  New  Testament  mean  Jewish  cere- 
monial days,  and  the  natural  inference  is  that  it  does 
not  here.  The  common  reader,  and  all  readers,  would 
naturally  suppose  that  it  means  here  what  it  does 
everywhere  else.  3.  The  ceremonial  feast  days  of  the 
Jews,  though  often  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament, 
never  take  the  name,  nature,  or  entire  observance  of 
the  weekly  Sabbath.  Each  has  its  own  distinctive 
name  and  character,  and  never  has  occasion  to  take 
"  Sabbath  "  for  its  name.  There  is  no  gleam  of  evi- 
dence that  the  Jews  of  the  apostles'  time,  or  any  of 
the  people  to  whom  he  wrote,  had  ever  heard  the  feast 
days  called  "  Sabbaths."  He  would  not  in  one  epistle 
originate  a  new  name  for  them.  4.  None  of  those 
feast  days  are  ever  called  Sabbaths  in  the  Old  Testa- 


130  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

ment  Hebrew,  save  the  day  of  atonement  in  two  in- 
stances (Lev.  xvi.  31;  xxiii.  32),  and  possibly  the  first 
day  of  convocation  in  the  passover  feast  in  one  pas- 
sage (Lev.  xxiii.  11,  15).  In  the  latter  case,  however, 
there  can  be  no  positive  proof  that  the  convocation 
day  is  called  a  "  Sabbath,"^  and  in  either  case  it  was 
not  to  give  the  day  the  name  "  Sabbath,"  but  to  indi- 
cate that  it,  was  to  be  more  sacredly  kept  than  other 
ceremonial  feast  days.  That  difference  seems  to  have 
been  simply  between  doing  no  work,  and  no  servile 
work.  The  single  word  ^^t  (Shabbath),  used  to  des- 
ignate the  seventh  day,  or  Sabbath,  in  the  fourth 
commandment,  is  not  even  applied  to  the  day  of 
atonement  without  the  qualifying  or  defining  word 
X'^^t.  (Shabbathon)  accompanying  it.  5.  In  the  sin- 
gle instance  where  the  feast  of  trumpets  is  in  the 
English  acccepted  version  called  a  "Sabbath"  (Lev. 
xxiii.  24),  and  in  the  one  verse  where  the  feast  of 
tabernacles  is  twice  called  a  "Sabbath"  (Lev.  xxiii. 
39),  there  is  a  mistranslation.  The  revised  version 
reads  "solemn  rest."  The  Hebrew  for  "Sabbath"  is 
Shahhath  or  Shahhath  Shabhathon.  The  day  of 
atonement  is  given  the  latter,  the  double  name,  I'est 
of  resting.  But  the  feasts  of  trumpets  and  taber- 
nacles are  called  merely  Shabhathoji,  a  Sabbatism,  a 
partial  rest  day.  6.  This  difference  is  very  clearly 
noted  in  the  Septuagint,  where  the  seventh  day,  the 
day  of  atonement,  and  the  seventh  year  are  termed 
Sabbaths,  and  the  two  feast  days  merely  rest  days; 
the  former  being  translated  by  the  Greek  (TaiS/Sdrwv, 
and  the  latter  by  avd7zao(Tt<;,  rest.  Therefore  there  is 
no  authority  for  calling  those  two  feast  days  ceremon- 

*  Subject  discussed,  p.  368.     Bib.  Sac. 


THE  "  LORD'S  DA  Y  ''—THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBA TH    131 

ial  Sabbaths.  They  were  called  Sabbatisms  merely 
to  describe  them  as  days  to  be  kept  in  paii  like  the 
weekly  Sabbath.  7.  The  translations  of  the  Penta- 
teuch into  the  Chaldee  language,  which  are  called 
Targums,  make  the  same  distinctions  that  the  Septua- 
gint  does  between  Sabbaths  and  Sabbatisms,  or  mere 
rest  days,  showing  that  the  ancient  Jews  never  called 
their  ordinary  feast  days  by  the  name  "Sabbath."  8. 
So  far  as  English,  Greek,  and  Hebrew  concordances 
reveal  the  use  of  the  word  "Sabbath,"  or  "Sabbaths," 
it  is  always  applied  to  the  seventh=day  Sabbath,  in 
both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  outside  of  one 
chapter  in  the  book  of  Leviticus  (xxiii),  and  one 
verse  in  a  second  chapter  (xvi.  31) — referring  to 
Sabbath  and  day  of  atonement — with  the  exception 
of  the  Sabbatic  year,  and  the  application  to  the 
year  seems  to  be  confined  to  Leviticus,  and  a  single 
verse  elsewhere  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  21).  The  single 
verse  now  under  discussion  (Col.  ii.  16),  is,  of  course, 
excepted.  With  a  use  of  the  word  "Sabbath,"  ap- 
plied to  feast  days,  so  very  limited,  is  it  probable  that 
a  single  other  case, — removed  from  the  former  by 
more  than  fifteen  hundred  years  in  time,  and  by 
nearly  all  the  books  in  the  Bible, — is  an  exception  to 
the  great  rule  of  usage?  We  think  not.  9.  In  Col. 
ii.  16  the  phraseology,  "  Of  a  feast,  or  of  a  new  moon, 
or  of  a  Sabbath  day,"  is,  in  substance,  a  copy  of  Ezek. 
xlv.  17,  where  we  read,  "In  the  feasts,  and  in  the  new 
moons,  and  in  the  Sabbaths."  TJie  difference  in  the 
English  accepted  version  is  between  "  holy  day,"  in 
the  former  instance,  and  "feasts"  in  the  latter.  But 
we  have  seen  that  "holy  day"  should  have  been  ren- 


132  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

dered  "feast."  Besides,  "holy  day"  often  really 
means  ceremonial  "feast,"  as  in  Neh.  viii.  9-11  ,wliere 
the  feast  of  tabernacles  is  spoken  of.  Six  other  in- 
stances occur  in  the  Old  Testament,  besides  this  in 
Ezekiel,  where  the  word  "Sabbaths"  is  joined  to 
those  of  "feasts"  and  "new  moon."  And  in  each  of 
these  seven  cases  the  word  for  "Sabbath"  or  "Sab- 
baths" is  not  the  Hebrew  for  Sahhatism,  or  mere  rest 
day,  but  is  that  for  the  weekly  Sabbath.  Now,  it  is 
nearly  or  quite  certain  that  the  apostle  borrowed  his 
phrase  in  CoL  ii.  16,  from  the  like  phrases  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  also  that  he  meant  by  the  word  "Sab- 
baths" what  is  meant  by  it  whence  he  borrowed — the 
seventh=day  Sabbath.  10.  The  word  "Sabbath"  or 
"Sabbaths"  in  the  New  Testament,  Greek  or  English 
(Col.  ii.  16  aside),  being  never  applied  to  feast  days, 
is,  nevertheless,  applied  to  the  seventh  day  at  least 
fifty^nine  times.  Is  it  not  arbitrary  and  unreasonable 
to  take  the  word  in  the  sixtieth  instance,  and  declare 
that  it  means  feast  days!  Is  it  not  an  error  to  even 
suppose  that  it  means  feast  days?  11.  There  are 
only  two  instances  in  the  whole  Bible  where  the  word 
"Sabbath"  is  certainly  applied  to  a  ceremonial  feast 
day,  the  day  of  atonement,  which  was  a  fast  day,  not 
feast  day,  when  the  people  were  to  afflict  their  souls, 
and  even  there  not  unqualified;  and  there  are  nearly 
one  hundred  and  fifty  instances  where  the  word 
"  Sabbath "  or  "  Sabbath=day,"  singular  or  plural,  is 
applied  to  the  weekly  seventh  day.  One  hundred 
and  fifty  against  two.  The  day  of  atonement  oc- 
curred once,  while  the  weekly  Sabbath  occurred  fifty- 
tw^o  times  in  the  year.  In  respect  to  passages,  one 
hundred  and  fifty  against  two,  and  in  respect  to  days 


THE  ''LORD'S  DA  F "  —  THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBATH    133 

in  the  year,  fifty4wo  against  one!  What!  on  this 
basis,  say  that  in  the  one  lone  passage  left,  the  word 
"  Sabbaths  "  means  ceremonial  feast  days,  and  does  not 
mean  the  weekly  Sabbath!  This  seems  like  doing 
violence  to  the  word  of  God.  Can  Christian  men 
longer  consent  to  do  it,  when  they  consider  the  facts 
of  the  case?  No  preconceived  or  cherished  opinions 
can  justify  us  in  holding  any  doctrine  inconsistent 
with  light  that  comes  from  the  sacred  page.  "Let  no 
man,  therefore,  judge  you  ...  in  respect  of  .  .  . 
a  Sabbath  day."  It  is  ageeed  by  all  that  this  makes 
it  optional  with  us  whether  or  not  to  keep  the  "Sab- 
bath days."  If  the  term  means  seventh-day  Sab- 
baths, then  it  is  left  to  our  choice,  and  there  is  no  ob- 
ligation upon  us  to  keep  them.  This  being  the  apos- 
tolic teaching  and  example  enjoining  us  to  sacredly 
regard  the  Lord's  day,  it  inevitably  follows  that  we 
have  here  evidence  of  a  change  of  the  sacred  weekly 
day  in  early  Christianity.  The  evidence  may  have 
come  suddenly  upon  us,  we  may  have  found  it  where 
we  least  expected  it,  but,  unless  there  is  essential  de- 
fect in  the  foregoing  data  and  reasoning,  we  have 
come  to  proof  of  a  change  of  observance  in  the  sacred 
weekly  day  under  the  apostolic  supervision.  The  ex- 
ample, as  well  as  the  instructions,  of  the  apostles,  on 
such  a  question,  must  be  ample  authority  to  all  those 
who  accept  them  as  inspired  teachers  sent  from  God.* 
We  must  conclude  that  Christ  first,  and  his 
apostles  following  him,  gave  absolute  authority  for 
the  universal  special  observance  among  Christians  of 

♦Another  marked  difference  between  feast  days  and  Sabbaths 
was  this:  On  feast  days  "no  servile  work"  should  be  done,  while 
on  Sabbaths  "no  manner  of  work"  should    be    done.  Lev.  xxiii. 


134  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

the  first  day  of  the  week,  at  least  to  some  extent. 
That  the  apostles  had  full  authority  from  their  Lord 
to  direct  on  this  subject,  is  unquestionable.  They 
had  delegated  power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  in  affairs 
of  the  church  (Matt,  xviii.  18).  They  could  remit 
sins,  and  were  sent  by  Christ,  as  he  was  sent  of  the 
Father  (John  xx.  21-28).  The  Holy  Ghost  would 
teach  them  and  bring  all  things  to  their  remem- 
brance (John  xiv.  26).  They  were  authorized  to 
pronounce  men  accursed  (Gal.  i.  8);  under  their 
ministry  Ananias  and  Sapphira  were  smitten  dead 
(Acts  V.  5,  10);  Hymeneus  and  Alexander  for  their 
heresy  were  delivered  unto  Satan  (1  Tim.  i.  20). 
The  apostles  gave  direction  as  to  discipline  in  the 
church  (1  Cor.  v.  13);  they  corrected  abuses  that 
crept  into  the  observance  of  her  ordinances  (1  Cor. 
xi.  20-30);  they  absolved  Christian  converts  from 
ceremonial  observances  of  the  law  (Acts  xv.  24,  29); 
and  surely  they  had  authority  to  say  whether  in  the 
Christian  dispensation,  the  seventh  or  the  first  day 
of  the  week  was  to  be  kept  sacred. 

(o)  Next  comes  one  of  the  most  fundamental  of 
all  questions  pertaining  to  the  whole  subject.  Does 
the  apostolic  authority  releasing  from  obligation  to 
keep  the  seventh=day  Sabbath,  abolish  the  fourth 
commandment,  or  render  it  inapplicable  to  the 
Lord's  day?  This  we  have  heretofore  discussed, 
when  considering  whether  the  apostles  taught  that 
the  Decalogue,  or  even  the  fourth  commandment, 
has  been  abrogated.  We  may  here  give  an  outline  of 
the  view  there  presented,  with  some  addition.  First, 
the  command  to  keep  the  seventh  day  is  not  exactly 


THE  ''LORD'S  DAY''  —  THE    CHRISTIAN  SABBA TH   135 

the  same  with  the  fourth  commandment;  therefore, 
the  one  may  be  set  aside  without  wholly  annulling 
the  other.  The  command  pertained  to  the  seventh 
day;  but  we  have  shown  that  there  might  be  a 
change  of  day  without  abrogating  the  command. 
We  have  found  a  new  weekly  day  observed,  at  least 
to  some  extent,  called  the  "  Lord's  day."  We  need 
to  observe  the  distinction  between  proportional  and 
ordinal.  We  have,  in  the  new  dispensation,  a  pro- 
portional seventh  of  time  to  be  held  as  sacred.  We 
have  not  the  ordinal  seventh.  The  former  is  by  far 
the  greater.  It  holds  in  itself  all  the  moyxd  elements 
of  the  command.  The  seventh  ordinal  was  contin- 
ued until  the  first  ordinal  was  instituted.  No  matter 
whether  the  primitive  saints  and  the  apostles  under- 
stood all  this.  The  apostles  in  due  time  knew  and 
taught  that  the  Lord's  day  was  thenceforth  to  be  the 
best  of  all  days;  and  that  the  seventh  day  must  retire 
from  the  chief  position. 

Dr.  Joseph  Cook  says;  "The  whole  scope  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  shows  that  the  moral  spirit  of 
the  whole  Decalogue  is  re^nstituted.  This  is  as 
true  of  the  fourth  commandment  as  of  the  fifth,  sixth, 
or  seventh."  ^  This  is  not  enough  to  meet  those  w^ho 
say  that  the  Decalogue  or  the  fourth  commandment 
is  abolished;  for  they  say  it  was  abolished  with 
Christ's  death.  Nor  was  it  intended  distinctively 
for  them.  Where  is  the  evidence  that  Christ  ever 
"  re^nstituted "  the  moral  part  of  any  portion  of 
God's  word?  He  recognized  it;  that  is  enough;  it 
stands  by  his  own  first  fiat.     But  the  men  who  claim 

^  Boston  Lectures. 


136  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

the  abolition  of  the  fourth  commandment,  or  of  the 
Decalogue,  say  that  nothing  of  these  now  stand  save 
what  the  apostles  "  re-instituted."  Where  is  the 
evidence  that  they  re^instituted  the  law?  They,  too, 
recognized  much;  yet  nothing  of  the  law  stands  by 
virtue  of  their  recognition,  but  by  its  original  enact- 
ment. Their  recognition  confirms  the  original  enact- 
ment; that  is  our  blessing.  Mr.  Cook  says,  again, 
"  The  teaching  and  example  of  the  apostles  and  our 
Lord  substituted  for  the  seventh  the  first  day  of  the 
week."  True;  but  we  must  say  more  to  those  who 
claim  that  nothing  of  the  moral  law  stands  except 
what  the  apostles  "  re^instituted."  We  must  deny 
that  the  moral  law  was  ever  abolished.  Then  we 
must  demand  proof  that  the  apostles  ever  speak  as 
though  they  were  "  re=instituting  "  any  divine  moral 
laws.  Christ  gave  a  new  commandment  (John  xiii. 
34),  and  the  apostles  rehearsed  it  (1  John  iii,  23), 
but  not  as  re=instituting  it.  Just  so  they  repeated 
the  commands  of  the  Decalogue,  not  as  re-enacting 
them,  but  as  appealing  to  them  for  divine  authority. 
That  the  apostles  held  to  the  binding  and  permanent 
nature  of  the  Decalogue,  is  evident  from  the  follow- 
ing: Paul,  in  Rom.  xiii.  9,  teaches  the  obligation  to 
observe  the  last  five  commandments,  naming  the 
subject  of  each;  and  James  teaches  the  same  by  one 
comprehensive  declaration  (ii.  8),  and  specifies  the 
sixth  and  seventh  (ii.  11).  Paul,  in  Eph.  vi.  2, 
teaches  the  duty  of  keeping  the  fifth  commandment; 
and  James  (v.  12)  specifically  teaches  the  obligation 
to  observe  the  third  commandment;  and  Paul  again, 
in  1  Cor.  vi.  9,  and  viii.  4-6  shows  the  duty  of  obey- 
ing the  second,  and  in  Rom.  i.  18-25,  that  of  obey- 


THE  ''LORD'S  DAY''  —  THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBA TH     137 

ing  the  first  commandment.  Concerning  the  fourth, 
Paul  teaches  exemption  from  the  former  seventh^ 
day  Sabbath  (Col.  ii.  16)  but  he,  and  the  whole  his- 
tory of  the  church  subsequent  to  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion, so  far  as  given  in  the  New  Testament,  teach 
both  the  privilege  and  duty  to  keep  sacred  a  new 
seventh  day,  in  commemoration  of  that  resurrection, 
the  completion  of  redemption.  Now,  in  respect  to 
the  abolition  of  the  seventh  day  as  of  binding  nature, 
Paul  does  speak  as  if  giving  a  new  message  (Col.  ii. 
16);  and  also  in  respect  to  the  first  day  (1  Cor.  xvi. 
2).  But  how  is  it  with  reference  to  the  other  com- 
mands? Paul  refers  to  the  "law"  and  the  "com- 
mandment," given  of  old,  as  existing  still  (Rom.  xiii. 
8,  9;  Eph.  vi.  2),  and  James  speaks  more  emphati- 
cally of  the  "royal  law  according  to  the  Scripture" 
(ii.  8),  and  of  the  "duty  to  keep  the  whole 
law"  (ii.  10),  and  of  the  great  Sovereign  who 
gave  the  law,  as,  "he  that  said"  (ii.  11),  im 
plying  that  as  he  commanded,  so  it  should  be  done, 
and  so  the  law  would  remain.  Dr.  Hessey  tells  us 
that  "  we  are  nowhere  told  that  we  are  to  obey  the 
commandments  called  moral  because  they  are  con- 
tained in  the  Decalogue,"  ^  What  telling  would  he 
have  besides  these  repeated  appeals  to  the  Decalogue 
by  two  inspired  apostles. 

Further,  that  the  moral  law  is  nowhere,  and  in 
no  part,  abrogated,  may  be  inferred  from  the  appar- 
ent fact  that  no  holiness,  or  state  of  mind,  on  the 
part  of  any  human  beings,  is  ever  acceptable  to  God, 
unless  in  it  is  embraced  the  spirit  of  full  obedi- 
ence by  the  active  powers,  by  which  we  do  not  mean 

^Sunday,  p.  152. 


13d  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

full  sanctification,  nor,  necessarily  obedience  with 
the  greatest  possible  strength ;  yet,  without  any  con- 
scious disobedience  or  known  reservation.  "  The 
righteousness  of  the  righteous  shall  not  deliver  him 
in  the  day  of  his  transgression"  (Ezek.  xxxiii.  12); 
"  Blessed  are  they  that  keep  his  testimonies  and  that 
seek  him  with  the  whole  heart.  Yea,  they  do  no  un- 
righteousness (Ps.  cxix.  2,  8);  "Ye  cannot  serve  God 
and  mammon  "  (Matt.  vi.  24) ;  "  Whosoever  shall  keep 
the  whole  law,  and  yet  stumble  in  one  point,  he 
is  become  guilty  of  all"  (Jas.  ii.  10);  "Thou  that 
art  of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  evil,  and  that  canst 
not  look  on  perverseness "  (Hab.  i.  13);  "Wherein- 
soever our  heart  condemn  us,  God  is  greater  than  our 
heart,  and  knoweth  all  things  "  (1  John  iii.  20).  The 
Old  and  New  Testament  are  agreed  on  this  point. 
Able  men  have  so  understood  the  Scriptures  in  re- 
gard to  it.  Calvin,  commenting  on  Matt.  vi.  24,  says: 
"  Since  God  everywhere  commends  sincerity,  while 
a  double  heart  is  abominable,  all  those  are  deceived 
who  think  he  will  be  contented  with  half  of  their 
heart."  ^  President  Edwards  says:  "  If  there  be  a  full 
compliance  of  will,  the  person  has  done  his  duty."^ 
"  If  a  man,  in  the  state  and  acts  of  his  will  and  in- 
clination, does  properly  and  directly  fall  in  with 
these  duties,  he  therein  performs  them."  ^  This  as- 
sumes that  full  obedience  of  the  will  is  necessary 
to  true  virtue  and  acceptance  with  God.  The  West- 
minster Confession  of    Faith   says:  "The  moral  law 

^  Com.,  in  loc. 

2 Works,  Vol.   ii.   p.  104;  Freedom   of  the   Will,  Part  iii.  seo. 
iv. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  105,  sec.  v, 


THE  ''LORD'S  DA  F "  —  THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBA  TH     139 

doth  forever  bind  all,  as  well  justified  persons  as 
others,  to  the  obedience  thereof  .  .  .  Neither 
doth  Christ  in  the  gospel  anyway  dissolve,  but  much 
strengthen,  this  obligation."  ^  The  modern  doctrine 
that  Christ  by  his  death,  or  by  his  apostles,  ''abol- 
ished," as  Robertson  and  others  say,  the  moral  law, 
or  Decalogue,  or  that  he  both  abolished  it  and  re- 
newed it,  as  some  say,  w^ould  have  seemed  a  strange 
opinion  to  those  Westminster  divines.  Baxter  said, 
"  If  you  would  be  truly  converted,  be  sure  that  you 
make  an  absolute  resignation  of  yourselves  and  all 
that  you  have,  to  God."  ^  President  Edwards  says,  of 
the  surrender  in  conversion:  "  Giving  up  ourselves 
with  all  that  we  have,  wholly  and  forever  unto 
Christ,  without  keeping  back  anything  or  m-aking  any 
reserve."^  The  Assembly's  Larger  Catechism  says 
of  the  penitent:  ''  He  so  grieves  for,,  and  hates  his 
sins,  as  that  he  turns  from  them  all  to  God,  purposing 
and  endeavoring  constantly  to  walk  with  him  in  all 
the  ways  of  new  obedience."  *  Such  is  evangelical 
preaching  everywhere.  But  can  we  be  fully  accepted 
with  God  after  conversion  with  less  obedience  than  at 
conversion?  Impossible!  God  is  not  changeable. 
He  always  requires  what  Edwards  calls  ''  a  full  com- 
pliance of  will,"  in  the  sense  of  full  obedience  of 
will  to  his  will,  to  his  moral  law.  Without  that  ''  full 
compliance,"  we  cannot  be  fully  accepted  with  him. 
It  was  so  in  the  old  dispensation  and  is  so  in  the  new. 

^  Chap.  xix.  sec.  v. 

2  Orme's  Life  of  Baxter,  Vol.  ii.  p.  82.     See,  also,  Prof.  Mor- 
gan on  "The  Holiness  acceptable  to  God,"  p.  66,  etc. 

3  Works,  Vol.  iii.  p.  189;    Religious   Affections,  Twelfth   Sign. 
*Ques.  76,  Ans.;  see  also    Westminster   Con.   of   Faith,  chap. 

XV.  sec.  ii. 


140  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

But,  has  that  will  of  God,  that  moral  law,  been  once 
interrupted  by  its  abolition?  What  cause  for  its  ab- 
rogation could  there  have  been  in  Christ's  death? 
And  what  proof  is  there  that  there  was  such  a  cause 
or  such  a  fact?  But  this  moral  will  and  law  of  God 
is  much  of  it  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament,  the 
once  Jewish  Scriptures.  What  occassion  is  there, 
therefore,  to  say,  with  Dr.  Dale,  that  "  the  Jewish 
revelation  has  become  obselete;"^  or  with  Dr.  G.  B. 
Bacon,  that  "  Christianity  superseded  the  whole  of 
the  Jewish  law;"  ^  or  even  with  Dr.  Thomas  Arnold, 
to  question  whether  "  The  law  itself  be  done  away  in 
Christ."' 

When  Paul  changed  the  fifth  commandment,  by 
extending  its  reward  beyond  long  life  in  Canaan  to 
long  life  "  on  the  earth  "  (Eph.  vi.  2,  3),  he  did  not 
revoke  the  duty  to  honor  father  and  mother.  When 
he  and  the  other  apostles,  under  the  guidance  of 
their  Saviour,  instituted  an  order  of  services  in  the 
apostolic  churches,  which  made  the  first  or  Lord's 
day  sacred,  and  left  the  observance  of  the  seventh 
day  optional,  they  did  by  no  means  revoke  anything 
in  the  fourth  commandment  which  did  not  pertain  to 
the  seventh  day  in  its  ordinal  sense.  So  far  as  we 
know,  they  never  uttered  one  word  against  the  fourth 
commandment,  nor  even  assumed  that  they  set  it 
aside.  We  know  very  well  that  all  they  who  now 
reject  the  seventh  and  keep  the  first  day,  and  with 
that  simple  change,  endeavor  strictly  to  obey  the 
fourth  commandment,   do  find  something    of    that 

'  Ten  Commandments  (Fourth),  p.  93. 

2  Sabbath  Question,  p.  101. 

^  Works,  Vol.  iii.  p.  257:  Sermon  xxii.,  The  Lord's  day. 


THE  ''LORD'*S  DAY'^—  THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBA TH    141 

commandment  left  to  them.  Therefore  it  would 
seem  that  there  is  something  in  the  fourth  command- 
ment besides  the  ordinal  element  of  the  seventh  day. 
The  sacredness  of  the  seventh  day  is  separable  from 
the  rest;  and  therefore,  when  Paul,  and  doubtless  all 
the  apostles  previously,  formally  released  men  from 
keeping  holy  the  seventh  day,  he  did  not  annul  or 
proclaim  annulled,  the  whole  fourth  commandment. 
What  is  separable  in  practice  is  in  theory  separable. 
Assume  it  as  a  fact,  that  when  Paul  announced 
release  from  the  obligation  to  observe  the  seventh 
day,  the  Christians  were  actually  devoting  the  first 
day  to  religious  services,  and  to  religious  joy  on 
account  of  Christ's  resurrection,  were  they  not  in 
effect,  keeping  the  fourth  commandment  with  the 
exception  of  the  ordinal  seventh=day  feature  of  it? 
Then  who  has  the  right  to  say,  that  when  the  apostle 
gave  his  direction  in  Col.  ii.  16,  he  substantially 
revoked  the  fourth  commandment?  The  Christians 
were  in  substance  keeping  the  greater  part  of  it. 
That  Paul  did  not  cite  it  and  say  that  in  the  main  it 
was  binding  still,  does  not  justify  the  assumption 
that  it  was  all  annulled.  It  was  to  stand  until  repeal- 
ed. When  the  Lord,  through  the  apostle  Paul, 
released  the  whole  Christian  world  thereafter  from 
the  obligation  to  observe  the  seventh  day,  did  he  at 
the  same  time  revoke  the  command,  "  Six  days  shalt 
thou  labor  and  do  all  thy  work  "  (Ex.  xx.  9)?  W^ho 
will  say  he  did,  and  give  us  proof  of  it?  No  proof 
can  be  given.  But  what  about  the  remaining  part  of 
the  fourth  command?  We  find  the  church  under 
the  apostolic  supervision  released  from  the  ordinal 
8eventh=day  feature,  and  we  find  that  at  least  a  few 


142  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

years  previous  to  that,  the  first  day  with  them  was 
noted,  and  devoted  in  part  to  religious  purposes, 
with  no  evidence  that  the  whole  of  it  was  not  held 
sacred.  From  these  premises  sound  reasoning  will 
not  justify  the  inference,  that  the  whole  of  the 
fourth  commandment  is  made  null  and  void.  And  if 
not,  then  are  we  not  driven  to  the  conclusion,  that 
by  divine  authority,  through  inspired  men,  a  change 
has  been  made  in  the  time,  in  the  ordinal  religious 
element,  of  the  weekly  religious  day?  We  can  not 
say  that  the  new  is  to  be  kept  as  was  the  old  in  all 
particulars.  For,  while  apostles  supervised  still,  we 
find  the  Sabbatic  sacrifices  in  the  temple  not  trans- 
ferred to  the  Lord's  day,  and  we  find  observed  on 
that  day  the  Lord's  supper,  which  did  not  pertain  to 
any  commemorations  or  transactions  of  the  seventh^ 
day  Sabbath.  The  clause  in  the  command  which 
requires,  us  to  restrain  our  children  and  servants 
from  labor  during  more  than  six  days  in  seven,  is 
that,  too,  annulled?  Are  we  left  without  a  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  "  for  our  own  benefit  and  that  of  our 
families  in  respect  to  the  time  for  labor?  No,  we  are 
not  thus  left.  Releasing  from  the  ordinal  seventh 
day  observance  does  not  release  from  this  part  of  the 
command.  But,  why  not  keep  the  command  pre- 
cisely as  it  reads?  Because  we  find  another  day 
taking  in  substance  the  place  of  the  former  one  in 
this  new  dispensation. 

In  all  this  the  Lord's^day  Sabbath  advocates  are 
not  usurping  authority  to  change  the  fourth  com- 
mandment; but  they  are  taking  care  not  to  change  it, 
or  unlawfully  to  announce  it  abolished,  or  no  longer 
in   force.      It  is  not   a   question    whether    devoted 


THE  ' -LORD'S  DA  F"  —  THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBA  TH     143 

Christians  would  observe  the  Lord's  day  if  there 
were  no  fourth  commandment.  But  it  is  a  question 
whether  Christians  of  little  experience  and  knowl- 
edge, and  those  of  small  devotion,  will  faithfully 
observe  it,  if  they  understand  that  no  real  authority 
can  be  brought  from  the  Decalogue  enjoining  the 
observance  of  the  Lord's  day.  It  is  a  question 
whether  the  world  must  reel  and  totter  and  fall  into  ^^ 

ruin,  because  it  has  no  such  law  as  the  fourth  com- 
mandment contains.  Long  enough  some  have  tried 
the  method  of  having  no  law  for  the  Sabbath,  noth- 
ing but  the  good  instincts  and  principles  of  the 
partially  sanctified,  and  the  prudence  of  selfdnterest, 
and  the  vain  conceits  and  the  godless  notions  of  an  im- 
penitent world.  The  Christian  spirit  in  our  land  is 
shivering  and  shuddering  at  the  prospect  and  fear 
of  the  coming  of  the  Continental  sabbath,  the  fruit 
of  unsound  Sabbatic  doctrine.  Hence,  the  strongest 
obligation  rests  upon  all  Christians  to  yield  no  inch 
of  ground  to  error  on  this  subject,  to  tenaciously 
hold  every  element  and  thought  of  truth  pertaining 
to  one  sacred  day  in  seven. 

Ohjection:  We  cannot  distinguish  in  the  fourth 
commandment  both  moral  and  positive  elements,  and 
properly  claim  permanence  and  authority  for  the 
former  and  not  for  the  latter,  and  yet  include  in  the 
former  the  requirement  to  suspend  all  labor  one  day 
in  seven.  Rcphj :  We  admit  that  one  part  of  the 
septenary  feature  in  the  fourth  command  is  jDositive; 
but  we  are  not  to  assume  that  (dl  of  the  positive  in 
the  command  is  repealed.  The  ordinal  septenary  ele- 
ment is  repealed,  according  to  Paul's  inspired  word 
(Col.  ii.  16).      The  proportional  septenary  element 


144:  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

is  not  repealed,  because  the  primitive  church,  while 
under  apostolic  supervision,  did,  at  least  to  some 
extent,  sacredly  regard  the  first  day,  which  is  as  truly 
septenary  in  the  proportional  as  the  seventh  day, 
and  no  evidence  appears  that  they  did  not  regard  it 
as  wholly  sacred.  That  there  are  moral  elements  in 
the  fourth  commandment  pertaining  to  rest,  worship, 
spiritual  culture,  and  holiness,  it  would  seem  that  no 
thoughtful  person  can  deny.  Its  company  in  the 
Decalogue  is  a  guarantee  for  its  moral  nature  in  part. 
If  it  were  wholly  positive,  we  should  have  no  right  to 
assume  its  abolition  without  divine  instruction  to 
that  end.  If  we  knew  it  was  wholly  both  positive 
and  transient,  we  should  not  look  for  it  where  it  is. 
But  its  moral  elements  existed  before  even  the 
formal  command  itself.  They  were  combined  and 
crystallized  in  it. 

Bishop  Butler  says:  "Moral  duties  arise  out  of 
the  nature  of  the  case  itself,  prior  to  external  com- 
mand." ^  Those  moral  elements  are  also  permanent. 
Archbishop  Whately  says,  that  moral  precepts  are 
binding  on  all  in  all  ages.^  It  is  not  needful  to  make 
a  very  studied  division  between  the  moral  and  posi- 
tive in  this  command,  because  revelation  comes  to 
our  aid.  It  tells  us,  and  subsequent  evidence  tells 
us,  that  the  primitive  church,  under  the  guidance  of 
the  apostles,  while  they  were  under  the  guidance  of 
Christ,  changed  their  chief  weekly  sacred  day  from 
the  seventh  to  the  first  of  the  week.  We  are  not  left 
simply  to  take  the  moral  elements,  and  be  guided  by 
them  as  well  as  we  may.     We  are  blessed  by  the  in- 

» Complete  Works,  p.  176. 

2  Difficulties  in  Writings  of  St.  Paul,  p.  169. 


THE  "LORD'S  DAY"  — THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBATH  146 

spired  singling  out  for  us  of  other  positive  elements, 
and  the  locating  of  them  in  the  Lord's  day. 

In  all  of  the  chief  institutions  of  the  old  and  new 
dispensations,  there  are  certain  underlying  moral 
principles  that  unite  them.  And  wherever  these 
moral  princii)les  appear,  they  have,  as  Whately  im- 
plies, a  binding  force  on  us.  There  was  the  principle 
of  a  covenant  with  God,  entered  into  by  Abel,  by 
Noah  (Gen.  ix.  9),  especially  developed  in  Abraham 
(Gen.  xvii.  2),  made  anew  and  amplified  in  the  new 
dispensation  (Heb.  viii.  6).  But  the  constituent 
elements  of  it  on  God's  part  are  everlasting.  Wher- 
ever it  appears  in  the  divine  word,  it  makes  an  ob- 
ligatory injunction  on  us,  and  that  because  of  its 
moral  and  eternal  nature.  The  articles  of  that  cove- 
nant are  distinctly  declared  to  be  the  Ten  Command- 
ments (Deut.  iv.  13).  They  were  very  conspicuously 
promulgated.  Their  nature  is  such  that  all  moral 
beings  must  be  bound  by  them  in  general.  A  slight 
change  in  them  to  adapt  them  to  the  world,  instead 
of  to  the  Jews  merely,  has  been  made.  But  that  does 
not  render  them  inapplicable  to  us.  The  fourth, 
where  the  chief  change  has  been  made,  is  still  appli- 
cable and  obligatory  as  it  stands  changed,  because 
the  covenant  in  its  elementary  part  is  everlasting. 
The  principle  of  sacrifice  is  another  great  underlying 
bond,  uniting  the  two  dispensations.  It  took  the 
form  of  animal,  symbolic  sacrifices  in  the  old,  and 
was  perfected  and  finished  on  God's  part  by  Christ's 
sacrifice  in  the  new.  It  remains  for  believers  ever  to 
hold  him  as  their  sacrifice  (1  Cor.  v.  7)  before  the 
Father,  and  to  be  themselves  a  "  living  sacrifice,  holy, 
acceptable  unto  God"  (Rom.  xii.  1).     So,  the  law  of 


Ue  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

the  Sabbath  has  certain  moral  constituent  parts,  join- 
ing the  two  hemispheres  of  the  world's  redemptive 
history.  It  appeared  in  the  seventh  day  previous  to 
the  Decologue,  and  held  its  course  all  the  way  until 
in  Christ  Jesus  it  was  made  anew.  Its  inner  nature 
even  unites  the  two  worlds,  present  and  future;  its 
rest  here  being  a  symbol  of  the  rest  that  remaineth 
to  the  people  of  God  (Heb.  iv.  9).  It  has  not  sunken 
from  human  sight,  for  we  find  the  substance  of  it  in 
the  Lord's  day  now,  Its  moral  elements,  along  with 
those  of  the  other  commands,  were  codified  and 
chiseled  into  tables  of  stone,  that  they  might  forever 
be  written  in  human  hearts.  The  importance  is  too 
great,  and  it  is  now  too  late,  to  suppose  that  they 
have  become  inoperative  or  have  been  abolished. 

Rev.  Newman  Smyth,  D.D.,  is  understood  in  one 
volume  to  sanction  the  vie\V*  that  the  fourth  com- 
mandment is  abolished.  He  says:  "  His  [Christ's] 
word,  '  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,'  finally  makes 
the  glorious  Christian  privilege  break  loose  from  the 
restraints  of  the  law."  *  ^  Mr.  Smyth^s  own  words  con- 
vict him  of  error.  He  says:  "  A  wonderful  revolu- 
tion was  wrought  in  the  transference  of  the  sanctity 
of  their  Sabbath  to  the  Lord's  day."  ^  Transference 
is  not  abolition.  The  "  moral  leadership  of  the 
Bible,"  *•  moral  good,"  "moral  progress,"  are  with 
him  favorite  thoughts.^  He  says  again:  ''Man's 
moral  sentiments,  and  their  growth,  come  from  the 
Father  of  lights,  or  all  is  darkness."  *    He  evidently 

*  Old  Faiths  in  New  Lights,  p.  86. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  354. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  76,  78,  80;  67,  7S. 
*Ibid.,  p.  69. 


THE  ''LORD'S  DAY''—  THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBATH  U7 

believes  that  moral  truth  is  eternal.  He  cannot, 
then,  consistently  believe  that  the  moral  element,, 
"  the  sanctity  "  of  the  fourth  commandment,  is  abro- 
gated; or,  that  men  can  legitimately,  "  break  loose 
from  the  restraints  of  the  [moral]  law." 


CHAPTEK  VIII. 

THE  EARLY  FATHEES  CONFIRM  THE  TEACHINGS  OF 

THE  APOSTLES. 

The  proposition  we  are  now  seeking  to  establish 
is  this:  The  first  or  Lord's  day  in  the  new  dispensa- 
tion was  the  chief  of  all  days  with  the  apostles  and 
early  Christians,  and  was  their  special  day  for  rest 
and  religious  worship.  In  adducing  evidence  to  sus- 
tain this  proposition,  we  have  devoted  several  chap- 
ters to  a  consideration  of.  First,  The  Lord's  Day  dur- 
ing Apostolic  Age.     We  now  consider: 

Secondly,  The  Lord's  day  during  the  Four  Cen- 
turies next  subsequent  to  the  Era  of  the  Apostles. 
In  prosecuting  this  investigation,  we  expect  to  find 
evidence  that  overthrows  the  peculiar  tenets  on  this 
subject  of  the  following  classes;  the  Seventh-day 
Sabbatarians,  who  hold  that  the  observance  of  Sun- 
day as  the  Sabbath  was  a  corruption  that  came  into  the 
church  not  until  some  time  after  the  earliest  of  the 
fathers  who  succeeded  the  apostles;  the  non^ Sabbath 
Lord'S'day  men,  who  hold  that  we  cannot  found  the 
observance  of  the  Lord's  day  on  the  fourth  command- 
ment, and  hence  that  it  is  abrogated;  the  large  class 
who  believe  that  the  sacred  observance  of  the  Lord's 
day  was  not  established  during  the  apostolic  period, 
but  by  the  church  subsequently;  and  the  Christian 
Sabbatarians,  who   fail   to  reinforce  their  own  argu- 

148 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARL Y  FA  THERS  149 

merits  for  a  Christian  Sabbath  from  the  passage  in 
Col.  ii.  16— holding,  as  they  do,  that  the  word  "  sab- 
baths "  there  does  not  refer  to  the  Jewish  seventh-day 
Sabbath. 

If  the  testimony  of  the  early  fathers  is  really  at 
variance  with  the  peculiar  sabbatic  views  of  all  the 
foregoing  classes,  then  the  way  of  faith  on  the  Sab- 
bath question  is  made  very  clear;  and  if  that  way 
shall  obtain  general  credence  in  the  church,  it  will 
certainly  lead  to  a  far  better  observance  of  the  Lord's 
day  than  now  exists.  Such  understanding  of  the 
patristic  testimony,  if  it  can  be  confirmed,  fully  sus- 
tains the  view  heretofore  taken  in  these  chapters  con- 
cerning the  Lord's  day  during  the  apostolic  age. 

The  early  fathers — those  nearly  or  quite  contem- 
porary with,  and  those  soon  succeeding,  the  apostles 
— speak  definitely  of  the  first  or  Lord's  day  as  religi- 
ously kept  by  themselves  and  their  fellow^Christians. 
Respecting  their  testimony,  it  is  not  here  claimed 
that  it  is  exceedingly  valuable  in  doctrine  or  wisdom, 
but  that  it  has  peculiar  importance  in  respect  to  the 
history  of  customs  and  practices  in  the  religious  life 
of  the  early  Christians.  As  Dr.  Hessey  says,  ''  Those 
whose  exegesis  of  Scripture  is  indifferent  may  be  ad- 
mitted as  witnesses  to  matter  of  fact."  ^  It  is  not  of 
chief  consequence  to  know  that  these  patristical 
writings  were  by  the  authors  whose  names  they  bear, 
but  that  they  date  in  the  early  Christian  era,  and  are 
historically  trustworthy. 

The  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  though  probably  not  writ- 
ten by  Paul's  noted  companion  of  that  name,  was 
certainly  in  existence  in  the  early  part  of  the  second 

^  Sunday,  p.  41. 


150  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

century — Hilgenfeld  says  at  the  close  of  the  first,' — 
and  therefore  dated  in  the  apostle  John's  time,  or  at 
least  within  twenty  or  thirty  years  of  his  death. 
Writing  in  behalf  of  Christians,  the  author  of  that 
epistle  says:  "We  keep  the  eighth  day  with  joyful- 
ness,  the  day  also  on  which  Jesus  rose  again  from  the 
dead."  ^  The  first  day  the  patristic  writers  sometimes 
called  the  eighth,  because  it  comes  next  after  the 
seventh.  We  see  that  the  eighth  was  the  first,  be- 
cause it  commemorated  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 
This  positive  declaration  of  the  keeping  of  Jesus'  res- 
urrection day,  made  while  the  apostle  John  yet  lived, 
or  within  a  few  years  after  his  decease,  would  in  that 
early  time  have  been  contradicted  if  it  were  untrue. 
But  no  such  denial  appears.  If  Christians  had  been 
divided  in  respect  to  keeping  the  first  day,  Barnabas's 
declaration  would  not  have  been  so  universal. 

Objection:  This  epistle  was  not  written  by  the 
Barnabas  of  Scripture,  and  is  therefore  a  forgery  and 
fraud.^  Reply:  It  may  have  been  written  by  an- 
other Barnabas,  or  by  one  who  from  respect  to  that 
name  assumed  it  as  a  nom  de  plume.  In  either  case, 
it  is  not  a  forgery.  It  has  won  historic  confidence 
by  being  found  carefully  preserved  with  the  Codex 
Sinaiticus  of  the  Scriptures;  and  that  copy  of  the 
epistle  restored  the  first  four  and  a  half  chapters  of 
the  Greek  text,  which  part  was  previously  known  to 
the  learned   only  in   an   ancient  Latin  version.     It 

^  Ante  Nicene  Library,  Vol.  i.  p.  100. 

2 Ibid.,  p.  128. — Bishop  Lightfoot  says,  previous  to  the  year  80. 

3  Andrews,  Hist.  Sab.,  pp.  211,  242;  Littlejohn,  Constitutional 
Amendment,  p.  248. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARL  Y  FA  THERS  151 

were  folly  now,  after  the  most  eminent  scholars  in 
patristic  lore  have  scanned  and  accepted  this  epistle, 
to  deny  its  genuineness,  or  the  force  of  this  passage 
concerning  Christ's  resurrection  day. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Magnesians  (shorter  recension), 
ascribed  to  Ignatius,  contemporary  of  the  apostle 
John,  is  now  by  the  more  reliable  scholars  regarded 
as  genuine.  Even  Professor  J.  B.  Lightfoot,  who 
held  that  the  three  epistles  in  Syriac  discovered  by 
Dr.  Cureton  were  only  an  abstract  of  the  genuine,  ' 
has  changed  his  opinion,  and  now  accepts  the  shorter 
recension  of  the  Greek.  He  holds  that  this  epistle 
to  the  Magnesians,  even  if  it  were  not  actually  writ- 
ten by  Ignatius,  may  be  safely  regarded  as  having 
been  composed  by  some  competent  and  authoritative 
person  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  second  century.^ 
It  has  been  found  in  the  early  Greek,  Armenian,  and 
Latin.  The  shorter  recension  has  the  following: 
"  If,  therefore,  those  that  were  brought  up  in  the 
ancient  order  of  things  have  come  to  the  possession 
of  a  new  hope,  no  longer  observing  the  Sabbath,  but 
living  in  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day;  on  which 
also  our  life  has  sprung  up  again  by  him  and  by  his 
death."  ^  The  word  "day"  is  in  question,  some  sup- 
posing it  should  be  "  life  " — Lord's  life.  Drs.  Rob- 
erts and  Donaldson,  the  latest  English  editors,  accept 
the  word  "  day  " ;  and  Zahn,  editor  of  the  latest  edi- 
tion of  the  Ignatian  epistles,  says  <ra/S/3ar£tovrc9  in  the 

»  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  i.  p.  142. 

2  Apostolic  Fathers  (Jackson  and  Prof.  G.  P.  Fisher  eds.),  pp. 
68,  69. 

3  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  i.  p.  180. 


152  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

preceding  clause  determines  that  r^/iipav  should  follow 
xupcax-^u^^  making  it  read  "  Lord's  day." 

Pliny  the  younger,  contemporary  of  the  earliest 
Fathers,  as  governor  of  Pontus  and  Bithynia,  where 
persecution  of  the  Christians  had  arisen,  about  A.  D. 
112,  reports  thus:  "The  Christians  affirm  the  whole 
of  their  guilt  or  error  to  be,  that  they  were  accus- 
tomed to  assemble  together  on  a  stated  day,  before  it 
was  light,  and  to  sing  hymns  to  Christ  as  a  God,  and 
to  bind  themselves  by  a  sacrament  urn,  not  for  any 
wicked  purpose,  but  never  to  commit  fraud,  theft,  or 
adultery;  never  to  break  their  word,  or  to  refuse, 
when  called  upon,  to  deliver  up  any  trust;  after  which 
it  was  their  custom  to  separate,  and  to  assemble  again 
to  take  a  meal,  but  a  general  one,  and  without  guilty 
purpose."  ^  Andrews — with  Bohmer  and  Gesner 
supporting — says,  because  the  first  day  is  not  men- 
tioned by  Pliny,  he  "  furnishes  no  support  for  Sun- 
day observance."  ^  But  Pliny's  stated  day,  hymns  to 
Christ,  sac7xime7itum,  and  a  meal  together,  are  so 
similar  to  Luke's  "  first  day  of  the  week,  when  the 
disciples  came  together  to  break  bread,"  and  "  Paul 
preached  to  them"  (Acts  xx.  7),  that  the  two  days 
will  be  regarded  by  nearly  all  as  identical,  especially 
in  connection  with  other  testimony  now  to  be  given. 

'  Patrum  Apostolicorum,  Opera,  Vol.  ii.  p.  37.  Note. — The 
numerous  quotations  we  make  from  the  fathers,  we  have  veri- 
fied by  reference  to  the  original  Greek  or  Latin.  But  we  make 
references  here  chiefly  to  the  Ante  Nicene  Library,  as  far  as 
that  extends,  because  that  is  most  accessible  to  the  majority  of 
our  readers,  and  was  so  to  us  during  the  chief  part  of  our  exam- 
ination of  this  subject. 

^Hessey  on  Sunday,  p.  42. 

3  Hist.  Sab.,  p.  236. 


TEST  I  MO  N  Y  OF  THE  EA  RL  Y  FA  THERS  1 53 

The  Christians  had  no  other   such  day  besides   the 
first. 

Justin  Martyr  unconsciously  defines  the  phrase 
*'  stated  day,"  about  thirty  or  forty  years  later  than 
Pliny's  letter,  when,  speaking  of  Christians,  he  says, 
"  On  the  day  called  Sunday  all  who  live  in  cities  or 
in  the  country  gather  together  to  one  place;  and  the 
memoirs  of  the  apostles  or  the  writings  of  the  proph- 
ets are  read  as  long  as  time  permits;  then,  when  the 
reader  has  ceased,  the  president  verbally  instructs 
and  exhorts  to  the  imitation  of  these  good  things. 
Then  we  all  rise  togeiher  and  pray,  and,  as  we  be- 
fore said,  when  our  prayer  is  ended  bread  and  wine 
and  water  are  brought  and  the  president  in  like 
manner  olBPers  prayers  and  thanksgivings  according 
to  his  ability;  and  the  people  assent,  saying  Amen; 
and  there  is  a  distribution  to  each,  and  a  participa- 
tion of  that  over  which  thanks  have  been  given,  and 
to  those  who  are  absent  a  portion  is  sent  by  the  dea- 
cons; and  they  who  are  well  to  do  and  willing  give 
what  each  thinks  fit;  and  what  is  collected  is  depos- 
ited with  the  president,  who  succors  the.  orphans  and 
widows,  and  those  who  through  sickness  or  any  other 
cause  are  in  want,  and  those  who  are  in  bonds,  and 
the  strangers  sojourning  among  us;  and,  in  a  word, 
takes  care  of  all  who  are  in  need.  But  Sunday  is  the 
day  on  which  we  all  hold  our  common  assembly,  be- 
cause it  is  the  first  day  on  which  God,  having  wrought 
a  change  in  the  darkness  and  matter,  made  the  world; 
and  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour  on  the  same  day  rose 
from  the  dead.  For  he  was  crucified  on  the  day  be- 
fore that  of  Saturn  [Saturday];  and  on  the  day  after 
that  of  Saturn,  which  is  the  day  of  the  sun,  having 


154  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

appeared  to  his  apostles  and  disciples,  he  taught 
them  these  things,  which  we  have  submitted  to  you 
also  for  your  consideration."  *  This  seems  to  imply, 
among  other  things,  that  Jesus  taught  his  apostles 
and  disciples  to  hold  their  religious  services  and  ob- 
serve the  Lord's  supper  on  the  first  day,  called  Sun- 
day. It  at  least  shows  that  such  services  were  held 
each  first  day  of  the  week.  Think  of  this  whole  pas- 
sage as  having  been  written  by  a  noted  man  of  the 
church  and  the  times,  at  least  only  thirty  or  forty 
years  after  the  death  of  the  last  of  the  apostles,  and 
as  having  then  no  contradiciion,  but  much  confirma- 
tion. Thus  early  in  the  patristic  age  we  find  incon- 
trovertible evidence  that  the  first  day  of  the  week 
was  regarded  by  the  Christians  as  sacred  to  religious 
services.  The  custom  of  so  observing  it  could  not 
have  arisen  in  so  short  a  time  subsequent  to  the  days 
of  the  apostles,  if  contrary  to  their  instructions  and 
example, 

Objection:  Many  writings  ascribed  to  Justin  are 
spurious.^  Reply:  The  above  testimony  is  from  Jus- 
tin's First  Apology,  well  known  to  be  genuine. 

Objection  Second:  Justin  did  not  mean  the  Lord's 
day,  for  he  speaks  of  Sunday;  and  Lord's  day  may, 
therefore,  mean  the  seventh,  and  not  the  first  day.^ 
Reply:  The  services  he  describes  show  that  he 
meant  the  first  day;  and  he  says  it  was  the  day  on 
which  Christ  "  rose  from  the  dead."  Addressing  the 
Roman  emperor  and  senate,  he  naturally  called  the 
day  by  its  secular  name — Sunday — established  by 
usage  before   Hadrian's  death,  which    occured  A.  d. 

1  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  ii.  pp.  65,  66;  also,  Apostolic  Fathers 
(Jackson  and  Prof.  Fisher  eds.),  p.  179. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARL Y  FA  THERS  155 

138.  The  name  Lord's  day  might  have  aroused 
Augustus's  suspicions  of  Justin's  loyalty.  The  Lord's 
day  and  Sunday  are  known  to  have  been  identical,  as 
we  shall  soon  see. 

Along  with  other  manuscripts  in  the  Library  of  the 
monastery  of  the  Most  Holy  Sepulchre  in  Constanti- 
nople found  by  Bryennios  now  Metropolitan  of  Nico- 
media  was  the  ''  Teaching  of  the  twelve  Apostles." 
Soon  after  being  found  it  was  translated  into  English 
in  1884.  It  is  certain  that  it  dates  back  to  the  middle 
of  the  second  century  or  the  last  of  the  first  century, 
making  its  time  soon  after  the  apostle  John's  death. 
In  it  is  this  passage  fourteenth  chapter:  '^  Coming  to- 
gether on  the  Lord's  day,  break  bread  and  give 
thanks,  confessing  your  transgressions,  that  your 
sacrifice  may  be  pure."  This  makes  it  sure  that  the 
Lord's  day  was  observed  at  that  early  period. 

Some  thirty  or  forty  years  later,  Dionysius,  bishop 
of  Corinth,  A.  D.  170,  in  a  letter  to  the  church  at  Rome, 
says:  "To-day  we  have  passed  the  Lord's  holy  day, 
in  which  w^e  have  read  your  epistle."  ^ 

Objection:  Dionysius  does  not  identify  the  Lord's 
day  with  the  first  day,  and  it  may  therefore  have  been 
the  Sabbath.^  Reply:  The  epistle  must  have  been 
read  to  a  Christian  assembly,  such  assemblies  cus- 
tomarily met  on  ths  first  day,  or  Sunday,  Justin  Mar- 
tyr a  short  time  previous  described  the  assemblies  of 
Sunday;  on  that  day  the  latter  was  undoubtedly 
read,  and  these  facts  nearly  identify  Sunday  with 
Lord's  day. 

Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  about  A.  D.  170,  is  credit- 
ed by  Eusebius  with  writing,  among  other  works, 
one  "  On  the  Lord's-day."  ^      The  work  itself  is  lost. 


166  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Objection:  The  discourse  may  have  been  about  our 
Lord's  life,  the  work  r^iiipa,  day,  not  being,  in  the 
Greek  text.^  Reply:  Melito  probably  had  the  full 
title,  and  Eusebius  omitted  a  part  because  rjixipa 
was  so  often  understood  after  xupta/.rj.  The  latter 
word  occurs  only  twice  in  the  New  Testament, — 
Lord's  Supper  (1  Cor.  xi.  20),  Lord's  day  (Rev.  i.  10). 
It  is  a  peculiar  adjective  form,  originated,  like  some 
other  adjectives,  by  the  apostles,^  and  used  here  as  a 
noun  in  the  possessive.  The  word  for  Lord  in  general 
use  is  y.opto?.  But  the  Fathers  so  often  used  /.opiax-q 
followed  by  r^pipa^  that  the  latter  was  sometimes 
omitted,  because  the  former  suggested  it.  In  Heb. 
iv.  4,  the  adjective  for  seventh  has  the  word  for  day 
understood.^  Sophocles'  Greek  Lexicon  gives  exam- 
ples of  /.uptaxTi  riiiipq.  in  the  Apocalyse  (i.  10),  and  in 
the  writings  of  Ignatius,  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, and  of  others.  This  adjective  form  for  the 
name  of  our  Lord  is  not  nearly  so  much  followed  by 
any  other  word  as  by  that  for  day.  Hence,  xuptaxij 
suggests  rjtiipa.  All  noted  students  of  the  patristical 
writings  give  the  title  in  full — ''  Lord's  day " — to 
Melito's  production  now  in  question— as  Routh, 
Laemmer,  Hessey,  Means,  in  Smith's  Dictionary, 
Patrologiae  Graecae.  Moreover,  a  modern  discovery, 
that  of  the  manuscript  in  the  Syrian  convent  in  the 
desert  of  Nitria  in  the  year  1843,  has  furnished  the 
Syriac  of  Eusebius's  list  of  Melito's  works,  and  there 
this  title  is,  ''  On  the  first  day  of  the  week,"  showing 
how  the  early  translators  into  the  Syriac  understood 

^  Winer's  New  Testament  Grammar,  p.  236. 
2lbid.,  p.  590. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  FA  THERS  15> 

the  title.'  Melito  was  contemporary  with  Dionysius; 
doubtless  they  understood  the  meaning  of  "  Lord's 
day  "  alike,  and  both  as  Justin  did,  and  he  as  being 
identical  with  first  day  or  Sunday. 

Irenaeus,  a  martyr,  bishop  of  Lyons;  A.  d.  178,  is 
quoted  by  an  early  subsequent  writer  as  saying: 
"This  [custom]  of  not  bending  the  knee  upon  Sun- 
day is  a  symbol  of  the  resurrection,  through  which 
which  we  have  been  set  free,  by  the  grace  of  Christ, 
from  our  sins  and  from  death  .  .  .  and  took  its 
rise  from  apostolic  times." "  The  writer  speaks  defin- 
itely of  "  the  Lord's  day  "  as  the  Sunday  spoken  of 
by  Irenaeus,  and  he  undoubtedly  knew  the  bishop's 
meaning.  A  question  early  arose  whether  the  close 
of  the  paschal  fast  should  be  on  the  fourteenth  day 
of  the  moon,  whatever  day  of  the  week  it  came,  or  on 
the  Lord's  day  alone.  The  former  was  the  practice 
of  many  Eastern  churches,  and  the  latter  of  the 
Western.  The  bishops  of  various  districts  issued 
epistles  on  the  subject.  Eusebius  says  that  Irenaeus 
presided  over  the  churches  in  Gaul,  and  the  bishops 
there,  as  in  other  parts,  unanimously  communicated 
"  that  the  mystery  of  our  Lord's  resurrection  should 
be  celebrated  on  no  other  day  than  the  Lord's  day; 
and  that  on  this  day  alone  we  should  observe  the 
close  of  the  paschal  fasts."  ^  Andrews  twice  says 
that  there  is  no  instance  where  the  term  Lord's  day 
is  found  in  Irenaeus's  works.*  The  above  is  an  in- 
stance reported  by  Eusebius. 

^  Spicilegium  Syriacum,   Cureton,  p  57.     See   also,   Apostolic 
Fathers:  (Jackson  and  Prof.  Fisher  eds.),  p.  190. 
2Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  ix.  pp.  162,163. 
3  Eccl.  Hist.,  Vol.  ii.  p.  236. 
*Hist.  Sab.  pp.  217,  273. 


158  iiABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Clement,  made  presbyter  of  the  church  at  Alexan- 
dria about  A.  D.  189,  quotes  from  Plato,  where  he 
says  the  philosopher  all  but  predicts  the  economy  of 
salvation,  and  also  where  he  fancifully  supposes  Plato 
prophesies  of  the  "  Lord's  day,"  under  the  name  of 
"  the  eighth."  '  Andrews  admits  that  Clement  em- 
ploys the  term  ',  Lord's  day,"  but  says  it  is  not  cer- 
tain that  he  means  a  natural  day.^  Yet,  in  the  same 
paragraph  Clement  makes  other  quotations;  four 
from  Homer,  one  from  Hesiod,  and  two  from  Calli- 
machus,  where  the  seventh  day  is  named,  plainly  a 
natural  day;  and  Clement  therefore  must  have  meant 
the  literal  Lord's  day,  a  natural  day,  the  first  of  the 
week.  But  if  any  doubt  remains  about  this  refer- 
ence, another  makes  his  testimony  clear,  where  he 
speaks  of  the  true  Gnostic,  by  which  he  means  the 
real  Christian,  as  keeping  "  Lord's  day  "  in  commem- 
oration of  the  Lord's  resurrection."  ^ 

An  important  testimony — in  a  work  quoted  from 
by  Eusebius,  but  discovered  in  full  by  Dr.  Cureton, 
among  the  Nitrian  MSS.  in  1843, — is  that  of  Barde- 
sanes,  who  flourished  near  the  close  of  the  second 
century.  Drs.  Cureton  and  Hessey  put  the  time 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century;  but  they 
are  doubtless  in  error  as  to  the  conquest  of  Arabia  by 
the  Komans  to  w^hich  Bardesanes  refers  as  then  re- 
cent. There  were  three  such  wars;  one  waged  by 
Avidius  Cassius,  about  a.  d.  162-5;  another  by 
Septtimius   Severus  in   A.   d.    195-6,   and  the  third 

'Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xii.  pp.  284,  286. 

2  Hist.  Sab.,  p.  219. 

*Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xii.  p.  461. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS  159 

by  Macrinus,  A.  D.  217-18.'  The  second  was  the 
greatest,  and  probably  the  one  referred  to  by  Barde- 
sanes.  He  discourses  first  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
observance,  and  then  says:  "  Wherever  we  be,  all  of 
us  aie  called  by  the  one  name  of  the  Messiah — Chris- 
tians; and  upon  one  day,  which  is  the  first  of  the 
week,  we  assemble  ourselves  together,  and  on  the  ap- 
pointed days  we  abstain  from  food."  ^  This  evidence 
is  indisputable. 

Tertullian,  reputed  to  have  been  converted  to 
Christianity  A.  D.  185,  speaks  of  "  the  sacred  rites  of 
the  Lord's  day  in  the  church,"^  distinctly  implying 
that  there  was  such  a  day,  and  that  it  was  religiously 
observed.  In  one  place  he  sayS:  "  We  count  fasting 
or  kneeling  in  worship  on  the  Lord's  day  to  be  un- 
lawful ";*  and  in  another:  "  We,  however  (just  as  we 
have  received),  only  on  the  day  of  the  Lord's  resur- 
rection ought  to  guard  not  only  against  kneeling," 
etc.^  The  two  passages  together  show  that  by  the 
Lord's  day  he  meant  the  day  of  Christ's  resurrection, 
and  that  day  they  kept  joyfully,  and  not  with  fasting 
and  other  austerities;  and  the  latter  passage  shows 
that  they  had  received  directions  in  regard  to  observ- 
ing the  Lord's  day  from  those  who  had  gone  before 
them.  In  two  passages  he  repels  the  charge  of 
opposers  that  the  Christians  worshipped  the  sun;  in 
one,  saying:  "  We  devote  Sunday  to  rejoicing  from  a 
far  different  reason  than  sun-worship";®  and  in  the 
other,  charging  upon  the  pagans  the  naming  of  the 

^Smith's  Die.  Biog.,  Vol.  i.  p.  257. 

'Spicilegium  Syriacum,  p.  32. 

3Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xv.  p.  428.  *Ibid.,  Vol.  xi.  p.  336. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  199.  nbid.,  p.  85.  Ubid.,  pp.  449,  450. 


160  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

first  day  of  the  week  by  the  term  Sunday,  he  says: 
"  It  is  you,  at  all  events,  who  have  even  admitted  the 
sun  into  the  calendar  of  the  week."^  In  connection 
with  this  last  passage  he  says:  "  We  make  Sunday  a 
day  of  festivity,"  by  which  he  meant  religious  joy, 
not  secular  festivity.  In  his  essay  on  idolatry  he 
speaks  of  the  Christians  as  having  "  a  festive  day 
every  eighth  day,"  and  of  that  as  the  Lord's  day.^  In 
his  discourse  on  prayer  he  speaks  of  what  is  appro- 
priate "  on  the  day  of  the  Lord's  resurrection,"  and 
says,  "  Deferring  even  our  business,  lest  we  give  any 
place  to  the  devil  "^;  by  which  he  implies  that  busi- 
ness on  the  Lord's  day  ought  to  be  and  was  suspend- 
ed. Neander  regards  this  passage  as  "  indicative  of 
the  transfer  of  the  law  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  to 
Sunday,"  and  of  TertuUian's  belief  that  attending  to 
any  business  on  Sunday  is  sinful.^  Notice  that  in 
respect  to  some  part  of  the  keeping  of  the  Lord's  day 
Tertullian  speaks  of  having  received  instruction  from 
those  who  had  gone  before.  Probably  he  had  also 
in  respect  to  omitting  business.  Mr.  Andrews,  the 
seventh=day  Sabbatarian,  implies  that  Tertullian  uses 
the  term  "  Lord's  day  "  in  only  three  instances  of  any 
moment.*  We  have  given  five,  including  two  where 
it  is  called  by  the  more  explicit  phrase  "  the  day  of 
the  Lord's  resurrection  " ;  and  seven,  including  two 
more  where  the  term  "  Sunday  "  is  used  as  equiva- 
lent to  Lord's  day.  Another  seventh^day  author,^ 
claiming  Neander  for  authority,  professedly  quotes 
from  him  (Kose's  translation):  "  The  festival  of  Sun- 

1  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xi.  pp.  162,  163.  ^Ihid.,  p.  199. 

3 Church  History,  Vol.  i.  pp.  295,  296.  *Hist.  Sab.,  p.  222. 

6  W.  H.  Fahnestock,  M.  D.  "  Bible  Sabbath."  ' 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  hATHERS  161 

day,  like  all  other  festivals,  was  always  only  a 
human  ordinance;  and  it  was  far  from  the  intention 
of  the  apostles  to  establish  a  divine  command  in  this 
respect."  If  any  such  language  ever  escaped  from 
Neander's  pen,  the  seventh^day  writers  ought  not  to 
be  allowed  now  to  suppose  that  any  such  idea  as  it 
conveys  was  that  historian's  latest  testimony.  On 
the  contrary,  in  the  records  which  had  his  seal  at  his 
death,  he  cites  Acts  xx.  7  and  Rev.  i.  10  as  apostolic 
intimations  of  a  change  among  the  early  Christians 
from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week;  which 
latter,  following  the  apostle  John,  he  terms  the 
"  Lord's  day."  He  also  cites  Barnabas  and  Ignatius, 
whom  we  have  already  quoted,  as  giving  evidence  to 
the  same  fact  of  change.  He  held,  further,  that  the 
early  churches  "  composed  of  Jewish  Christians, 
though  they  admitted  with  the  rest  the  festival  of 
Sunday,  yet  retained  also  that  of  the  Sabbath."^ 
We  have,  then,  Neander's  sanction  to  our  main  de- 
duction from  not  only  Tertullian's  testimony,  but 
from  that  of  Barnabas  and  Ignatius  also. 

It  is  certain  that  Tertullian  used  the  names  "  Lord's 
day  "  and  "  Sunday  "  as  equivalent.  Undoubtedly, 
then,  Justin  by  the  word  Sunday  meant  Lord's  day: 
and  Dionysius  by  Lord's  day  meant  Sunday;  and 
Melito,  Irenaeus,  Clement,  and  others  before  and 
after,  used  these  names  interchangeably.  Seventh 
day  Sabbatarian  authors  have  positively  declared  that 
there  is  no  early  evidence  that  the  term  "  Lord's  day" 
meant  the  first  day.  But  when  we  find  from  the  dis- 
tinguished Tertullian  that  they  did  in  his  time  mean 
the  same,  and  find  no  evidence  of  any  other  usage,  we 

*  Church  History,  Vol.  i.  (Torrey's  translation),  pp.  295,  296. 


162  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

may  well  conclude  that  the  apostle  John  by  the  term 
"  Lord's  day  "  meant  the  first  day  of  the  week,  which 
commemorated  our  Lord's  resurrection,  and  that  the 
meaning  which  he  gave  was  ever  after  continued.  So, 
also,  we  may  well  conclude  that  the  sacredness  as- 
cribed to  the  Lord's  day  by  Tertullian  had  from  the 
first  been  known  in  the  Christian  church.  Much 
evidence  tends  to  that  conclusion;  no  real  evidence 
tends  to  the  contrary.  Shall  we  find  this  view  corrob- 
orated by  testimonies  of  later  dates? 

Minucius  Felix,  author  of  Octavius,  about  A.  D.  166 
or  198,  said  of  the  Christians,  "  On  a  solemn  day  they 
assemble  at  the  feast.  "  ^  The  speaker  in  the  dialogue 
from  which  this  is  taken  refers  to  the  Lord's  day  and 
supper.  The  character  of  the  latter  he  misrepresents ; 
but  that  does  not  weaken  this  evidence  of  the  day's 
observance. 

We  have  reviewed,  up  to  this  point,  the  first  cen- 
tury after  the  apostle  John's  death,  and  we  find  in 
that  time  thirteen  thoroughly  credible  witnesses  con- 
curring in  the  fact  that  the  Christians  of  that  era  re- 
garded and  observed  the  first  or  Lord's  day  as  the 
chief  of  all  days ;  and  we  find  no  contemporay  testi- 
mony to  the  contrary. 

Cyprian,  raised  to  the  rank  of  presbyter  A.  D.  247, — 
one  of  the  martyrs  in  Africa, — speaks  of  the  Lord's 
day  as  sacred",  and  as  at  once  the  first  and  the  eighth; 
and,  by  a  play  upon  the  ordinal,  he  recalls  the  fact  of 
*'  the  observance  of  the  eighth  day  in  the  Jewish  cir- 
cumcision of  the  flesh.  "^ 

Origen,  in  his  Commentary  on  Exodus,  says  the 

1  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xiii.  p.  464. 

2  Ant.   Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  viii.  p.  198. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS  163 

Lord's  day  is  superior  to  the  Jewish  Sabbath;  ^  and 
in  his  noted  work  against  Celsus,  the  epicurean  phil- 
osopher (a.  d.  244-249),  he  acknowledges  that  he 
kept  the  Lord's  day,  and  says,  "  The  perfect  Christ- 
ian ...  is  always  keeping  the  Lord's  day."  ^ 
Origen  was  one  of  the  most  learned  men  of  his  time 
and  must  have  known  the  views  of  the  earlier  Fath- 
ers; and  had  he  disagreed  with  them  and  their  fellow 
Christians  respecting  the  Lord's  day,  it  would  some- 
where appear. 

Anatolius,  bishop  of  Laodicea,  A.  D.  270,  whom  Eu- 
sebius  ranks  as  superior  to  all  of  his  time  in  science 
and  learnino:,^  in  his  Paschal  Canon,  speaks  of  the 
Lord's  day  by  name  at  least  ten  different  times.  He 
says  the  Lord's  resurrection  took  place  upon  it,  and 
that  "  on  the  Lord's  day  was  it  that  light  was  shown 
to  us  in  the  beginning,  and  now  also  in  the  end  the 
com  forts  of  all  present  and  the  tokens  of  all  future 
blessings."  ^ 

Victori  nus,  martyr,  bishop  of  Petabio,  A.  D.  270-290, 
speaks  of  the  Lord's  day  as  one  of  joy  and  thanksgiv- 
ing.' 

The  Apostolic  Constitutions,  attributed  to  Clement 
of  Rome,  for  the  most  part  dating  at  least  between  A. 
D.  150  and  350,  placed  by  Bunsen  in  the  second  or 
third  century,  and  certainly  referred  to  by  Epiphan- 
ius,  who  died  A.  D.  402, — contains  this:  ''On  the  day 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord,  that  is,  the  Lord's 

^  Patrologiae,  Tom.  xii.  p.  345. 

2  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol  xxiii.  p.  509. 

^  Eccl.  Hist.,  Bk  vii.  chap.  32. 

*  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xiv.  pp.  420,  425. 

5  Ibid.,  Vol.  xviii.  p.  390. 


164  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

day,  assemble  yourselves  together,  without  fail,  giv- 
ing thanks  to  God,  and  praising  him  for  those  mer- 
cies God  has  bestowed  upon  you  through  Christ."  ^ 

Peter,  a  martyr  and  a  bishop  of  Alexandria,  A.  D. 
306,  in  a  sermon  on  penitence  said:  "The  Lord's  day 
we  celebrate  as  a  day  of  joy,  because  on  it  He  rose 
again;  on  which  day  we  have  received  it  for  a  custom 
not  even  to  bow  the  knee.  .  .  .  On  the  Lord's  day 
we  ought  not  to  fast,  for  it  is  a  day  of  joy  for  the  res- 
urrection of  our  Lord."  ^ 

Eusebius,  bishop  of  Caesarea  A.  D.  315  (dying  pre- 
vious to  340),  besides  stating  that  Irenseus  (bishop  of 
Lyons  a.  d.  178)  wrote  an  epistle  on  celebrating  the 
mystery  of  Christ's  resurrection  on  the  day  of  the 
Lord  only,^  states  twice  that  Constantine  appointed 
the  first  and  chief  of  all  days,  the  day  of  the  Lord,  for 
prayer,* — not,  however,  that  he  originated  it, — and 
says  that  he  commanded  all  to  assemble  on  the  Lord's 
day  for  refreshment  to  the  body,  and  for  comfort  and 
invigoration  to  the  soul  by  divine  precepts.^  In  his 
commentary  on  the  ninety^second  Psalm  Eusebius 
speaks  of  the  "saving  Lord's  day  ...  in  which  th9 
Savior  of  the  world  .  .  .  obtained  the  victory  over 
death." '^  Constantine's  edict  concerning  the  Lord's 
day,  A.  D.  321,  would  never  have  been  issued,  if  pre- 
viously the  day  had  not  long  been  observed  by  the 
Christians. 

1  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xvii.  p.  189. 

2  Ibid.,  Vol.  xiv.  p.  322. 

3  Eccl.  Hist.,  Bk.  v.  Chap.  xxiv.  p.  239. 

*  Life  Const.,  Bk.  iv.  chap,  xviii.  p.  189;  Orat.  Praise  Const., 
chap.  ix.  p.  828. 

^Ibid.,  chap.  xvii.  p.  378. 

^Patrologise  Grsecse,  Tom.  xxiii.  p.  1170. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS  165 

The  Nicene  Council,  A.  D.  325,  assumed  the  exist- 
ence and  the  customary  observance  by  the  Christians 
of  the  Lord's  day,  in  their  decision  that  as  a  rule 
prayer  on  that  day  should  be  offered  standing,  and 
not  kneeling,'  and  that  Easter  should  be  celebrated 
on  that  day.^ 

Athanasius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  326,  recog- 
nizes the  Lord's  day  so  much  as  to  suppose  that  in 
the  phrase  ''upon  Sheminith,'' — upon  the  eighth, — in 
the  title  of  the  sixth  Psalm,  there  is  a  reference  to 
that  day;"  and  as  to  say,  in  comments  on  the  phrase 
"This  is  the  day  which  the  Lord  hath  made,"  in  Ps. 
cxvii.  24  (cxviii.  our  version),  "The  phrase  signifies 
the  resurrection  day  of  our  Savior,  which  is  named 
from  him,  to^w^t,  the  Loixi's  day."  Elsewhere  he 
speaks  of  the  persecutions  suffered  by  the  Christians 
while  they  were  at  prayer  on  the  Lord's  day.* 

EpijDlianius,  bishop  of  Constantia  in  Cyprus,  A.  D. 
367,  a  man  of  extensive  reading,  speaks  of  the  Lord's 
day  as  established  hij  the  apostles;^  and  if  in  his  time 
that  were  not  a  conceded  fact,  we  should  probably 
find  it  contradicted. 

Basil,  bishop  of  C^esarea,  A.  D.  370,  exalts  the  day 
on  which  Christ  arose  and  believers  rose  with  him.^ 

Gregory,  bishop  of  Nyssa,  A.  D.  372,  magnifies  the 
Lord's  day  as  the  day  the  Lord  hath  made,  and  as 

*  Christian  Councils,  Hefele,  p.  434. 

-Canon  xx  of  Counc;  Schaflf's  Hist.  Ch,  p.  876;  also  Ch.  Hist., 
Vol.  ii.  p.  383. 

'Opera,  Tom.  i.  folio,  Pars  ii.  p.  1014. 

♦Lib.  of  Fafh.,Hi6t.  Tracts,  p.  195. 

^  Opera,  folio,  Tom.  i.  p.  1104:  chap.  xxii.  Exp.  Eid.  Cathol. 

^  Opera,  (Paris  ed.),  Tom.  ii.  p.  123. 


166  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

commemorating  Christ's  resurrection  and  the  begin- 
ing  of  creation.^ 

Ambrose,  bishop  of  Milan,  a.  d.  374,  speaks  often 
of  the  Lord's  day,  implying  that  it  was  the  day  of 
His  resmTection.^ 

Jerome,  ordained  presbyter  a.  d.  379,  speaks  often 
of  the  Lord's  day,  of  its  sacredness  to  Christians,  of 
church  attendance  upon  it,  and  of  its  distinction 
from  Jewish  sacred  days.^ 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  made  bishop  of  Constanti- 
nople A.  D.  380,  refers  often  to  the  Lord's  day  and  to 
the  memory  of  his  resurrection.* 

Theophilus,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  385,  dis- 
courses of  the  Christians  as  honoring  the  Lord's  day 
because  of  the  blessing  of  his  resurrection,^ 

Gaudentius,  bishop  of  Brescia,  A.  d.  387,  calls  the 
first  the  Lord's  day,  and  identifies  it  as  that  of  His 
resurrection;  and  of  the  beginning  of  creation.^ 

Augustine,  ordained  bishop  of  Hippo  A.  D.  395, 
expresses  his  view  of  the  Lord's  day  by  saying  to 
Faustus  the  Manichaean,  "  What  you  call  Sunday, 
we  call  the  Lord's  day;  and  on  it  we  do  not  worship 
the  sun,  but  commemorate  the  Lord's  resurrection."^ 

Chrysostom,  elected  archbishop  of  Constantinople 
A.  D.,397,  speaking  of  the  Lord's  day,  says,  ''All  the 
unutterable  blessings,  and  that  which  is  the  root  and 

^  In  Christ,  Res.,  Opera,  fol.  Colon.  Agrip.  p.  454. 

2  Opera,  fol.  Tom.  ii.  p.  883,  C.  Epist. 

3  Opera,  Tom.  iv.  p.  272,  in  Epist.  Gal.  iv.lO. 
*Comm.  Opera,  fol.  Tom.  ii.  p.  1094;  Orat.  xli. 
^Biblioth.  Veterum  Patrnm,  Vol.  v.  p.  860. 

^  Biblioth.  Vererum  Patrum,  p.  945,  De  Paschae,  Tract  i. 
^Manichean  Heresy  (Edinburgh  ed.),  p.  324. 


TESTIMONY  OF  TSE  EARLY  FATHERS  167 

the  beginning  of  our  life,  took   place  on   this  day."* 

Cyril,  made  bishop  of  Alexandria  A.  d.  412,  in  dis- 
coursing on  the  purposes  of  the  Sabbath  of  the  old 
dispensation,  assumes  often  that  the  Lord's  day  is  to 
be  honored.^ 

Theodoret,  made  bishop  of  Cyrus  a.  d.  420  or  423, 
speaks  of  the  Jews  as  observing  the  Sabbath,  and  of 
the  Christians  as  keeping  sacred  the  Lord's  day,^ 

Socrates,  the  historian  who  flourished  about  A.  D. 
420,  speaks  of  the  Lord's  day  and  of  the  Sabbath  as 
occurring  weekly.* 

Sozomen,  also  an  historian,  and  contemporary  with 
Socrates,  speaks  of  the  Lord's  day  as  that  which  the 
Jews  called  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  of  Con- 
stantine's  honoring  the  day  because  on  it  Christ 
arose  from  the  dead.^  His  language  implies  that 
it  was  not  made  the  Lord's  day  by  Constantine,  but 
that  it  was  such  before  his  edict, 

Sedulius,  presbyter  and  poet,  who  flourished  about 
A.  D.  450,  in  his  Paschal  Song,  gives  high  honor  to 
the  Lord's  day.^ 

Leo  the  Great,  bishop  of  Rome  A.  d.  440-461, 
speaks  of  the  day  of  our  Lord's  resurrection  as 
sacred,  and  gtves  a  summary  of  the  reasons  that 
make  it  so  conspicuous/ 

iHomil.  1  Cor.  xvi.  2,  Lib.  Fathers  (Oxford  ed.),  p.  606. 

^De  Adorat.  in  Spir.  et  Verit.,  Opera,  fol.,  Vol.  i.  pp.  619,  620; 
de  Fast.  Paschal.,  Tom.  vi.  p.  82. 

^De  Fabulis  Haer.,  Tom.  iv.  p.  219. 

*  Greek  Eccl.  Hist.,  Vol.  iii.  p.  436,  Bk.  vi.  chap.  viii. 

^Ibid.,  Vol.  iv.  p.  16,  Bk.  1.  chap.  viii. 

•^Biblioth.  Vet.  Patr.,  Tom.  vi.  p.  470,  H.  Lib.  iv. 

^Schaff's  Hist.  Christ.  Church,  Vol.  ii.  p.  385;  Leon  Epist.  ix. 
ad  Dioscurum  Alex.  Episc,  chap.  1. 


168  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

The  Coucil  of  Eliberis,  or  Elvira  (Hefele),  A.  d. 
305  or  306,  threatened  with  church  suspension  any 
one,  living  in  town  or  city,  who  should  absent  him- 
self from  church  three  Lord's  days/ 

The  Council  of  Laodicea,  A.  D.  363,  voted  that 
Christians  should  rest  from  labor  on  the  Lord's  day 
if  they  were  able;^  seeming  to  imply,  as  Dr.  Heurtley 
suggests,  that  some  of  them  had  not  always  the  com- 
mand of  their  own  time.^ 

The  Council  of  Antioch,  A.  d.  340,  ordained  that 
refusal  to  partake  of  the  communion,  which  was  ob- 
served each  Lord's  day,  should  be  visited  with 
excommunication.* 

The  Council  of  Sardica,  A.  d.  347,  adopted  the 
action  of  the  Council  of  Eliberis.^ 

The  Council  of  Gangra,  about  the  middle  of  the 
fourth  century,  condemned  those  who  contemned  the 
house  of  God.^ 

The  First  Council  of  Toledo,  A.  d,  400,  decreed 
that  those  who  refused  to  partake  of  the  communion 
which  was  observed  each  Lord's  day,  should  be  ex- 
communicated.^ 

The  Fourth  Council  of  Carthage,  A.  D.  436,  added 
to  the  foregoing  that  if  one  left  the  church  while  the 
minister  was  preaching  he  should  be  anathematized.^ 

^Conc.  Elib.  Canon  xxi.  Labbi,  Tom.  ii.  col.  9,  p.  376. 
2 Cone.  Laod.  Canon  xxix.  Labbi,  Tom.  ii.  col.  570;  Neander's 
Church  Hist.,  Vol.  ii.  p.  300. 
^Hessey,  Sunday,  p.  316. 

*Conc.  Antioch,  Canon  ii.  Labbi,  Tom.  ii.  col.  1309. 
•''Cone.  Sardica,  Canon  li.  Labbi,  Tom.  iii.  col.  20. 
^Ccnc,  Gangra,  Canon  v.  Labbi,  Tom.  ii.  col.  1101. 
^Conc.  Toledo,  i.  Canon  xiii.  Labbi,  Tom.  iii.  col.  1000. 
^Conc.  Carthag.  iv.  Canon  xxiv.  Labbi,  Tom.  iii.  col.  953. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS  169 

In  the  case  of  each  Council  there  is  indicated  a  pre- 
vious knowledge  of  the  Lord's  day  and  the  church 
services  on  that  day. 

When  Christianity  came  to  assume  control  of 
national  affairs,  civil  action  was  often  taken  in  favor 
of  the  Lord's  day.  Constantine,  A.  d.  321,  command- 
ed the  general  observance  of  the  Lord's  day;  grant- 
ing to  Christians  leisure  for  religious  services,  and 
enjoining  upon  pagan  soldiers  prayer  to  God  on  that 
day;'  also  ordering  the  suspension  of  suits  and 
courts  of  justice,  yet  granting  civil  action,  on  Sun- 
day, for  the  emancipation  of  slaves.^  Under  Valen- 
tinian  and  Valens,  A.  d.  368,  a  law  was  enacted 
forbidding  the  exaction  of  taxes  and  collection  of 
other  dues  on  Sunday.^  Theodosius  I.,  A.  D.  379  and 
386,  forbade  civil  proceedings  and  pagan  spectacles 
or  theatrical  performances;  and  the  latter  Theodos- 
ius II.  forbade,  A.  d.  425.*  Leo  and  Anthemius,  a.  d. 
469,  forbade  other  secular  amusements,  and  granted 
to  Christians  other  immunities  from  civil  annoyances 
and  proceedings  on  the  Lord's  day.^ 

Such  is  the  course  of  history  through  about  four 
centuries  succeeding  the  death  of  most  of  the 
apostles.  From  beginning  to  end  it  shows  an  un- 
broken chain  of  evidence  that  the  Christians  sacredly 
observed  the  Lord's  day.      No  testimony  to  the  con- 

^Life  Const.,  Bk.  iv.  chaps.  18,  19. 

2  Neander's  Ch.  Hist.,  Vol.  ii.  p.  300. 

^Schaff's  Church  Hist.,  Vol  ii.  p.  381;  Hessey,  Sunday,  pp.  83, 
84. 

*Ibid.,  also  Robertson's  Church  Hist.,  Vol.  i.  j).  248;  Hessey, 
Sunday,  p.  83. 

^Cod.  Theod.  xv.  5,  2,  a  386;  Hessey,  Sunday,  pp.  83,  84. 


170  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

trary,  or  reference  to  it,  anywhere  appears.  The 
proofs  are  doubled,  and  often  more  than  quadrupled, 
all  along  the  line;  the  earlier  life  of  some  witnesses 
continually  overlapping  the  later  of  others.  The 
seed  of  testimony,  which  we  discover  in  the  apostolic 
and  earlier  patristic  days,  develops  into  the  lofty  tree 
with  wide^spreading  branches  after  a  few  centuries 
have  passed  by.  This  universal  observance  of  the 
Lord's  day  among  the  early  Christians  is  proof  that 
they  regarded  such  observance  an  obligation  as  well 
as  privilege,  and  that  they  believed  the  obligation 
had  been  imposed  by  divine  authority.  Such  belief 
on  the  part  of  the  apostles  was  equal  to  inspiration. 
Suppose  the  pilgrims  had  crossed  the  Atlantic  to 
Plymouth  Rock  in  the  ship  Neptune,  and  not  in  the 
Mayflower.  Could  subsequent  history,  through  four 
hundred  years,  possibly  state,  repeat,  and  reiterate 
that  they  came  in  the  Mayflower,  with  not  the  least 
dispute,  or  even  allusion,  to  the  contrary?  Impos- 
sible! Suppose  the  Lord's  day  were  not  sacred  and 
chief  with  the  apostles  and  early  Christians,  could  all 
subsequent  history,  through  four  centuries,  represent 
and  reiterate  that  it  was  sacred  and  chief,  with 'no 
statement  to  the  contrary?     Equally  impossible! 

Objection:  First-day  authors  rely  on  the  phrase 
Dominicnm  Se^^vasti?  "  Hast  thou  kept  the  Lord's 
day?  "  as  a  genuine  question,  put  by  the  persecutors 
to  the  Christians  in  the  primitive  era,  and  as  there- 
fore showing  that  the  first  day  was  then  kept  sacred. 
We  deny  its  genuineness,  and  the  validity  of  the  in- 
ference from  it,^  Reply:  So  far  as  appears  to  the 
present  writer  this  objection  is  well  founded.     And 

'Andrews,  Hist.  Sab.,  chap.  xv. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS  171 

the  phrase  in  question  has  been  so  often  adduced  in 
the  first-day  argument  as  to  justify  calling  attention 
to  its  probable  lack  of  authority.  Dr.  Justin  Ed 
wards/  Gurney,  the  English  author,'  President  Ap- 
pleton  of  Bowdoin  college,^  Rev.  A.  A.  Phelps,*  Henry 
Wilkinson,^  Gilfillan,'^and  the  recently  issued  volume, 
"  Sabbath  Essays,"  ^  all  quote  this  language  as  reli- 
able. In  the  ancient  Christian  writings  Dominicum 
sometimes  stands  for  Lord's  supper,  and  for  Lord's 
day  and  Lord's  house;  the  word  for  supper,  day,  and 
house  being  understood,  and  inferable  from  the  con- 
nection. McClintock  and  Strong  cite  a  passage  from 
Cyprian  where  they  say  Dominicum  means  both 
Lord's  supper  and  Lord's  house  in  the  same  para- 
graph.^ But  their  translation  would  not  be  accepted 
by  many,  is  certainly  not  necessitated,  and  is  contrary 
to  that  given  by  the  Ante  Nicene  Library,  which  ren- 
ders the  word  "  Lord's  supper  "  in  both  instances.^ 
The  sufferings  of  many  early  Christians  led  to  a  vol- 
ume entitled  '*  Acta  MarUjrum,''^  of  which  there  have 
been  several  editions,  Ruinart's  being  apparently  the 
most  valuable,  and  in  it  the  word  Dominicum  often 
occurs.  But,  so  far  as  we  learn,  no  one  has  found 
it  there  joined  to  the  word  servasti  with  diem  either 

1  Sabbath  Manual,  p.  120. 
2Hi6t.  Authen.,  and  Use,  Sab.,  pp.  87,  88. 
MVorks,  Vol.  ii.  p.  219. 
*Perpet.  Sab.  141. 

^  Formerly  Primiipal  Magdalen  Hall,  Oxford,  quoted  by  Pres. 
Appleton. 

^  The  Sabbath,  p.  7. 

^  Sabbath  Essays,  p.  249. 

8  Bib.  Tbeo.  Eccl.  Cyc,  Vol.  ii.  p.  859. 

^Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xiii.  p.  11. 


172  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

expressed  or  understood.  Bishop  Andrewes,  of  Win- 
chester, born  A.  D.  1555,  seems  to  have  first  given  this 
quotation  from  the  Acta  Martyrum,  and  he  gave  it 
erroneously,  probably  by  some  mistake  of  memory  or 
copying.  From  him  the  error,  if  it  be  such,  has 
come  down  through  centuries,  no  first-day  Sabbatarian 
author  taking  pains  to  verify  the  quotation,  or  to  at- 
tempt it.  But  no  dependence  need  be  placed  on  the 
dialogue  introduced  by  the  question,  Dominicum  ser- 
vasU?  The  verified  quotations  from  the  Fathers  are 
of  themselves  sufficient  to  show  that  the  early  Chris- 
tians observed  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  most 
sacred  of  the  seven. 

We  now  consider: 

Thirdly,  how  the  seventh  day  was  regarded  by  the 
Christians  during  the  three  centuries  next  succeeding 
the  apostles.  If  we  find  evidence  that  it  was  as  strict- 
ly observed  by  them,  as  by  themselves  and  their 
fathers  before  the  new  dispensation  commenced,  then 
we  must  conclude  that  the  primitive  Christians  kept 
equally  sacred  two  days  in  the  week,  and  that  the 
Lord's  day  was  not  intended  to  take  the  place  of  the 
seventh^day  Sabbath. 

After  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  at  least,  the 
Christians  began  to  omit  more  than  ever  the  observ- 
ance of  the  seventh  day,  and  to  regard  it  as  no  longer 
binding.  The  temple  destroyed,  the  sacrifices  having 
ceased,  the  holy  place  no  more, — then,  if  not  before, 
began  to  dawn  upon  the  common  Christian  mind  the 
fact  that  the  Jewish  economy  was  abrogated,  and  that 
Judaic  rites  and  ceremonies  were  no  longer  required 
by  the  Lord.  Yielding  the  seventh  day  wa  s  one  of  the 
last  steps  in  breaking  off  from  the  old  order  of  things, 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS  173 

and  Judaizing  Christians-  continued  long  to  observe 
both  the  seventh  day  and  the  first.  But  as  might  have 
been  expected,  the  observance  of  the  two  days  by 
Christians  in  general  was  not  permanently  practiced. 
The  earlier  Gentile  Christians  embraced  their  new 
faith  in  connection  with  worship  in  Jewish  syna- 
gogues; and  therefore,  probably,  with  the  Jews,  more 
or  less  observed  the  seventh  day  for  a  season.  But 
we  know  not  when  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of 
the  week  was  commenced,  unless  as  early  as  the  day 
of  pentecost,  or  earlier.  And  doubtless  quite  early 
many  Gentiles  and  many  Jewish  Christians  began  to 
avail  themselves  of  the  apostolic  privilege  of  omitting 
the  strict  religious  observance  of  the  seventh  day — a 
privilege  embraced  in  such  sayings  as  that  of  Paul: 
"  Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  ...  in  respect 
of     .     .     .     the  sabbath=days "  (Col.  ii.  16). 

Yet  the  historical  part  of  the  New  Testament  is  too 
early  to  give  much  light  respecting  the  omission  to 
keep  the  seventh  day  sacred.  Appeal  must  be  made 
again  to  the  early  fathers,  whose  views  doubtless  were 
directly,  in  some  cases,  in  most  indirectly,  received 
from  the  apostles.  Here  we  are  at  issue  with  the 
Sabbatarians,  who  advocate  the  seventh  day  as  still  the 
Sabbath.  They  contend  that  the  fathers  of  the  second 
century  at  least  did  not  sanction  the  neglect  to  keep 
holy  the  seventh  day.  We  maintain  that  while  they 
did  not  deem  it  sinful  to  keep  both  days,  and  re- 
garded it  as  impossible  for  a  Christian  to  neglect  the 
first  day,  they  strenuously  opposed  binding  the  con- 
sciences of  believers  to  the  observance  of  the  seventh. 

Ignatius,  contempory  of  the  apostle  John,  by  the 
shorter  recension,  speaks  of  Christians  as  ''  no  longer 


174  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

observino-  the  sabbath" — seventh  day;  and,  by  the 
longer  recension,  exhorts  to  the  spiritual  observance 
of  the  seventh,  but  deprecates  the  "  Jewish  "  formal 
method.  ^  The  epistle  of  Barnabas,  while  commending 
the  eighth  (first)  day,  speaks  of  the  Lord  as  abolishing 
Jewish  sacrifices,  new  moons,  and  Sabbaths;  ^  and  as 
saying,  "  Your  present  Sabbaths  are  not  acceptable  to 
me."  ^  Justin  Martyr  implies  that  the  Christians  did 
not  feel  obligated  to  keep  the  seventh  day,  by  saying 
"  We,  too,  would  observe  the  fleshly  circumcision,  and 
the  Sabbaths,  and,  in  short,  all  the  feasts,  if  we  did  not 
know  for  what  reason  they  were  enjoined  you."  Also, 
"  How  is  it,  Trypho,  that  we  would  not  observe  those 
rites  which  do  not  harm  us, — I  speak  of  fleshly  cir- 
cumcisions, and  Sabbaths,  and  feasts."  *  Irenaeus 
treating  of  symbolic,  signs,  says  that  sacrifices  sugges- 
ted the  "  true  sacrifice,"  "  circumcision  after  the  flesh 
typified  that  after  the  spirit,"  and  "  Sabbaths  taught 
that  we  should  continue  day  by  day  in  God's  service," 
implying  that  all  these  had  passed  away.^  Be  it 
observed  that  the  fathers  did  not  regard  the  seventh- 
day  Sabbath  as  the  whole  of  the  fourth  command- 
ment. Not  once  can  we  find  in  their  writings  the 
statement  that  the  fourth  commandment  is  abolished. 
But  we  do  find  there  the  strongest  affirmations  that 
the  decalogue  is  unrepealed  and  yet  in  force,  and 
even  also  that  the  fourth  commandment  is  not  abol- 
ished. Those  specific  testimonies  we  consider  here- 
after. 

1  Ant.  Nic.  Lib;  Vol.  i.  p.  150.  ^  15^^.  p,  iQg^ 

3  Ibid;   p.  128. 

*  Ibid;  Vol.  ii  p.  109. 

5  Ant.  Nic.  Lib;   Vol.  v.  pp.  427,  422. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS  175 

TertuUian,  exhorting  Christians  not  to  mingle  in 
heathen  festivals,  since  they  would  not  in  the  Jewish, 
says,  ''By  us,  to  whom  Sabbaths  are  strange,  and  the 
new  moons,  and  festivals  formerly  beloved  of  God."  ^ 
More  explicitly  he  says,  "  The  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath is  being  demonstrated  to  have  been  temporary."  ^ 
Bardesanes  contrasts  the  observance  of  the  seventh 
day  by  the  Jews  with  that  of  the  first  by  the  Chris- 
tians, implying  that  the  latter  did  not  regard  the  sev- 
enth as  sacred.^  Origen  gives  a  list  of  the  sacred 
days  he  was  accustomed  to  observe,  without  including 
the  Sabbath,*  and  speaks  of  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath 
as  having  changed  it.^  Victorinus  says,  "Lest  we 
should  appear  to  observe  any  Sabbath  with  the  Jews, 
which  Christ  himself,  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  says 
by  his  prophets  that  his  soul  hateth,  which  Sabbath 
he  in  his  body  abolished.®  Anatolius,  a.  d.  270, 
speaks  often  of  the  Lord's  day  and  its  celebration, 
but  not  of  the  seventh  as  having  any  honor  in  com- 
parison with  the  first. ^  Eusebius  speaks  of  the  Sab- 
bath, meaning  the  seventh  day,  as  a  Mosaic  institu- 
tion, and  of  the  Lord's  day  as  "more  honorable  than 
the  Jewish  Sabbath."^  Athanasius  speaks  emphati- 
cally of  the  Sabbath,  seventh  day,  as  having  passed.^ 
Cyril,  archbishop  of  Jerusalem,  elected  presbyter  a.  d. 

J  Ibid,  Vol.  xi.  p.  162. 

2  Ibid,  xviii.  p.  211. 

'^Spicilegium,  Syriacum,  pp.  31,  32. 

*  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xxiii.  p.  509. 

s  Com.  in  Matt.  Opera,  Tom.  iii.  543  E. 

^Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xviii.  p.  390. 

'Ibid.,  xiv.  p.  425. 

^  Comm.  on  Ps.  xcii. 

^De  Sab.  et  Cir.  Opera,  Tom.  ii.  fol.  p.  55. 


176  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

345,  says,  "Nor  throw  thyself  into  the  assemblies  of 
the  heathen  spectacles  ....  And  fall  not  into 
Judaism  .  .  .  Abstain  from  all  observance  of  Sab- 
baths, and  from  calling  any  indifferent  meat  common 
or  unclean."  ^  Hilary,  elected  bishop  of  Poitiers, 
about  A.  D.  350,  speaks  of  the  first  day  as  much  supe- 
rior to  the  seventh,  and  as  the  one  observed  by  Chris- 
tians.^ Epiphanius  speaks  of  the  great  Sabbath,  rest, 
in  Christ,  to  which  the  smaller  or  original  one  was 
introductory.^  Ambrose  speaks  of  the  Lord's  day  as 
preferred  over  other  divine  works,*  and  of  the  Sab- 
bath, seventh  day,  as  secondary  to  it.^  Gregory  of 
Nyssa  speaks  of  the  Sabbath,  seventh  day,  as  though 
it  pertained  to  the  former  Jewish  institutions.*  Je- 
rome, contrasting  Jewish  with  Christian  institutions, 
places  the  Sabbath  with  the  former.^  Augustine  says, 
''The  rest  of  the  Sabbath  we  consider  no  longer  bind- 
ing as  an  observance."  ^ 

Thus  we  find  a  stream  of  evidence  adverse  to  the  ob- 
servance of  the  seventh^day  Sabbath  among  Christians, 
running  through  three  centuries,  and  having  its  source 
among  the  Fathers  nearest  the  apostles,  and  among 
the  apostles  themselves.  Paul  condemns  binding  the 
conscience  to  Sabbaths;  Ignatius  says,  Christians  no 
longer  observe  that  day  as  chief,  but  the  Lord's  day; 
and.  three  centuries  after,  Augustine  says.  Christians 

'  Lib.  of  Fathers,  Cyril,  p.  51;  Lee.  iv.  sec.  37. 

2Prol.  in  Lib.  Psal.  Opera,  col.  8. 

3  Adv.  Haer.  Opera,  fol.  Tom.  i.  p.  159. 

*  Enarratio  in  Ps.  xliii.  Opera,  Tom.  i.  col.  887  E. 
5  Enar.  in  Ps.  ilvii.  Opera,  Tom.  i.  col.  936.  D. 

^  In  Chris.  Resur.,  Opera,  fol.  p.  456. 
^  Expl.  Ps.  cxviii.;  Hessey.,  Sun.,  p.  806. 

*  Reply  to  Fanstus,  Bk.  vi.  sec.  4.  p.  172. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS  177 

consider  Sabbath^keeping  no  longer  binding.  But 
note  should  be  taken  that  when  the  Fathers  taught 
that  the  seventh  day  need  not  be  observed,  they  also 
taught  that  the  first  should  be  observed;  that  when 
the  seventh  lost  its  sacredness,  the  first  received  a  sa- 
credness  in  the  universal  Christian  esteem.  Nearly 
every  i^atristic  writer  who  teaches  that  it  is  not  a  duty 
to  observe  the  seventh  day  teaches  equally  that  it  is 
the  duty,  or  practice,  of  Christians  to  observe  the 
Lord's  day.  The  two  days  were  not  observed  in 
exactly  the  same  manner.  Sunday  had  nothing  of  the 
sacrifices,  or  shew^bread,  or  fasts  of  the  seventh  day; 
and  it  had  the  Lord's  supper,  and  rejoicing  over 
Christ's  resurrection,  and  its  glorious  assurances, 
which  the  seventh  day. had  only  in  symbols.  Yet, 
both  days  had  convocations.  Scripture  reading,  praise, 
prayer,  and  omission  of  the  usual  secular  duties;  as 
though  the  Lord's  day  had  absorbed  all  the  moral 
elements  of  the  original  Sabbath,  and  left  the  posi- 
tive, to  most  of  which  the  Judaizers  still  clung  with 
much  tenacity.  This  reveiw  of  the  patristic  writings 
confirms  the  testimony  and  impressions  given  by  the 
New  Testament  in  various  respects.  It  shows  that 
the  first  day  of  the  week  was  celebrated  by  the  apos- 
tles and  early  Christians  in  commemoration  of 
Christ's  resurrection;  that  it  was  the  distinctive  Chris- 
tian day  for  sacred  regard;  that  the  chief  and  regular 
Christian  assemblies  were  held  upon  it;  that  no  evi- 
dence appears  in  the  patristic  writings,  as  none  does 
in  the  New  Testament,  of  Christians  assembling  as 
such  on  the  seventh  day,  as  the  chief  of  all  days; 
that  the  early  fathers  certainly  used  the  term  "Lord's 
day"  as  synonymous  with  "first  day,"  and  doubtless 


178  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

in  imitation  of  the  apostle  John's  language;  that  ac- 
cording to  apostolic  authority,  Christians  are  released 
from  the  obligation  to  observe  the  seventh  day,  and 
are  bound  to  observe  the  first;  that  the  statement  of 
Roman  Catholic  writers  that  Protestants  are  indebted 
to  that  church  for  authority  to  keep  the  Lord's  day^ 
is  unfounded,  since  we  trace  the  observance  to  the 
apostles;  and  that  we  ought  to  accept  inspired  exam- 
ple and  instruction,  though  without  express  com- 
mand, as  authority  for  change  of  observance  from  the 
seventh  to  the  first  day,  or  else,  in  consistency,  con- 
tinue sacrifices,  circumcision,  and  the  passover,  since 
they  are  revoked  in  the  new  dispensation  by  example 
and  instruction  rather  than  by  command.  The  testi- 
mony of  the  fathers  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  any 
theory  of  New  Testament  teaching  on  this  subject, 
except  that  the  apostles  and  contemporary  Christians 
regarded  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  chief  of  all 
days,  held  on  it  their  chief  religious  services,  and  be- 
lieved it  to  be  sacred. 

And  according  to  this  showing  from  Scripture  and 
the  early  patristic  writings,  those  who  observe  the 
seventh  day  as  now  the  chief  day  in  the  week,  to  be 
carefully  kept  sacred,  have  no  basis  for  their  peculiar 
theory  and  practice.  It  follows  that  the  reason  for 
their  increase  of  numbers  during  these  later  years 
has  been  the  misinformation  on  this  subject  dissemi- 
nated by  their  publications  and  living  teachers.  We 
have  shown  from  the  Scriptures  that  the  apostles  and 
early  Christians  observed  the  first  or  Lord's  day  as 
chief  and  sacred.  We  have  commenced  with  the 
fathers  contemporary  with  and  immediately  succeed- 

ifiib.  Sac,  Vol.  xxxvi.  p.  731. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS  179 

ing  the  last  of  the  apostles,  and  traced  their  testi- 
mony through  the  next  succeeding  four  centuries. 
And  we  find  in  that  space  a  long  line  of  nearly  fifty 
human  witnesses,  whose  united  testimony  concen- 
trates upon  this,  that  the  religious  observance  of  the 
Lord's  day  was  begun  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and 
under  their  sanction.  There  arises  no  one  note  of 
dissonance  in  the  whole  troop  of  men,  nor  anywhere 
around  them.  This  would  not  and  could  not  be  true 
unless  our  main  proposition  were  true,  that  the  Lord's 
day  in  all  that  time  were  first  and  chief.  Nor  is  there 
simjply  a  single  utterance  from  each  of  these  many 
witnesses,  but  some  seventy=five  different  passages 
give  their  concurrent  voice,  and  still  more  could  be 
cited.  And  yet,  in  this  long  lapse  of  nearly  fifteen 
hundred  years,  the  writings  of  these  fifty  men  have 
nearly  all  perished.  And  in  the  three  centuries  next 
succeeding  the  apostle  John  we  have  found  and 
named  nearly  twenty  men  who  directly,  or  indirectly, 
testify  that  in  all  that  time  the  seventh =day  Sabbath 
took  a  quite  inferior  place,  at  least  in  the  Christian 
heart,  as  compared  with  the  Lord's  day.  And  their 
number,  and  the  number  of  their  testimonies,  could 
both  be  much  increased.  This  concurrent  testimony 
respecting  the  first  and  seventh  days  is  just  what 
might  be  expected.  The  Lord's  day  coming  forward 
to  the  chief  place,  the  seventh  day  would  retire  to  a 
quite  inferior  one.  And  yet  all  this  is  proved  to  be 
the  fruit  of  apostolic  instruction  and  example,  and 
therefore  the  result  of  the  word  and  act  of  Jesus 
Christ,  who  by  it  all  is  the  more  glorified. 

In  view  of  the  facts  ascertained  or  collected  in  this 
discussion,  we  see  no  occasion  for  any   first  day  Sab- 


180  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

batarians  to  "confess  to  a  consciousness  of  obscurity" 
in  regard  to  the  ''authoritative  change"  from  the 
seventh  to  the  Lord's  day,  whether  the  latter  be 
strictly  a  Sabbath  or  not;  nor  even  for  any  to  affirm 
that  the  change  is  a  "difficult  point  to  establish."  ^ 
We  have  not  precisely  mathematical  demonstration 
for  the  change,  but  we  have  the  highest  probabilities 
that  our  Lord  in  some  way  has  given  the  first  day  of 
the  week  to  be  kept  sacred  in  the  new  dispensation. 
And  on  the  highest  probabilities  in  all  moral  questions 
men  are  at  liberty,  and  are  bound,  to  believe  and  to 
act. 

For  equally  strong,  or  stronger,  reasons  there  is  no 
real  basis  for  what  Dr.  Hessey  calls  the  "ecclesiastical 
theory"  respecting  the  Lord's  day:  ^  the  view  that  the 
sacred  observance  of  the  first  day  has  no  authority 
except  in  the  history  of  the  church  since  the  apostolic 
era.  For  we  obtain  New  Testament  evidence  that  in 
the  apostles'  time  the  first  day  was  relis^iously  ob- 
served, and  the  obligations  to  keep  holy  the  seventh 
day  were  cancelled.  Further,  we  get  evidence  from 
the  fathers,  beginning  with  those  contemporary  with 
the  last  of  the  apostles,  that  they  understood  the 
apostles  to  authorize  the  keeping  of  the  first  day 
sacred,  and  to  release  from  keeping  the  seventh  as  the 
Sabbath,  and  that  th©  apostles  authoritatively  acted 
in  this  under  instruction  from  their  divine  Master. 

And  again,  according  to  this  discussion,  the  view 
of  some  even  American  evangelical  ministers,  that  the 
early  Christians  were  disagreed  on  the  question  of 
keeping  the  first  day  in  a  religious  manner,  is  entirely 

^  Sabbath  Essays;  Mass.  Sab.  Conventions,  p.  149. 
2  Sunday,  pp.  8,  132. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS  181 

wrong.  Not  the  least  evidence  of  such  disagreement 
appears  in  the  New  Testament,  and  positive  evidence 
of  agreement  on  that  point  appears  in  the  patristic 
writings.  Some  early  Christians  held  to  more  obliga- 
tion to  keep  the  seventh  day  than  others  did,  but  all 
agreed  in  the  obligation  to  keep  the  first  day. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  EARLY  FATHERS  ON  THE  CEREMONIAL  AND  MORAL 
LAWS. 

Having  shown  from  the  apostolic  and  succeeding 
fathers  ot  the  primitive  era  that  the  Christians  of 
their  time  kept  sacred  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and 
did  not  regard  the  seventh  day  as  binding  for  holy 
observance,  we  come  to  a  third  and  more  difficult 
question:  Did  the  early  fathers  teach  that  setting 
aside  the  seventh  day  involves,  in  form  or  in  sub- 
stance, the  abrogation  of  the  fourth  commandment  ? 
Two  parties  in  opinion  here  come  distinctly  before 
us.  One  party  is  made  up  of  two  divisions,  of  which 
one  says  that  the  fourth  commandment  is  in  form 
abolished;  that  the  Scriptures  so  teach,  and  the 
fathers  also.  The  other  division,  not  going  so  far, 
says  that  the  early  fathers  did  not  found  the  observ- 
ance of  the  first  day  on  the  fourth  commandment,  and 
we  cannot;  and  that  in  substance  that  command  is 
not  in  force,  except  analogically  by  its  principle; — 
there  was  a  sacred  seventh  day  in  the  old  dispensa- 
tion, and  there  is  another  in  the  new.  The  second 
party  holds  that  we  properly  can  base  the  observance 
of  the  Lord's  day  on  the  fourth  commandment;  but 
are  disposed  to  confess  that  we  have  to  do  it  despite 
the  views  and  testimony  of  the  early  fathers.  They 
in  consequence  claim  that  the  patristical  writings  on 

X82 


FATHERS  ON  CEREMONIAL  AND  MORAL  LA  WS      183 

this  subject  are  not  trustworthy,  since  they  stand 
adverse,  as  they  think,  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
Sabbath  as  depending  on  the  fourth  command.  They 
confess,  even  many  of  the  most  intelligent  men 
on  the  Sabbath  question  confess,  that  in  this  one  re- 
spect of  patristical  evidence,  the  cause  of  a  sacred 
Sabbath  is  weak.  The  two  parties  understand  the 
fathers  alike  in  this  respect,  as  wholly  rejecting  any 
sacred  day  based  on  the  fourth  commandment.  But, 
while  one  party  so  understands  them  to  the  detriment 
of  the  command,  the  other  understands  them  to  the 
detriment  of  the  fathers  themselves.  We  do  not  fully 
agree  with  either  party,  but  believe  that  the  true  ap- 
prehension of  the  language  of  the  father's  casts  no 
detriment  on  either  themselves  or  the  command,  and 
is  entirely  consistent  ivith  a  Christian  Sabbath 
founded  on  both  the  command  and  the  teaching  and 
example  of  the  apostles^  which  is  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

Dr.  Hessey  says,  "  The  early  church  never  appealed 
to  the  fourth  commandment  as  a  ground  for  observ- 
ing Sunday."  ^  Again,  he  says  that  none  of  the 
**  early  fathers  "  "  refer  to  the  fourth  commandment, 
or  to  God's  rest  after  the  creation,  for  the  sanction 
of  the  Lord's  day."  ^  Dr.  Hopkins,  of  Auburn  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  says,  "  neither  Christ  nor  his 
apostles,  nor  the  primitive  fathers  taught  that  the 
fourth  commandment  was  of  moral  and  permanent 
obligation."^  In  the  volume,  entitled  "  Sabbath  Es- 
says," of  the   Massachusetts   Sabbath   Conventions, 

>  Sunday,  p.  203. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  53,  54. 

^Pittsburgh  Evangelical  Alliance  Address. 


184  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Prof.  E.  C,  Smyth,  D.  D.,  of  Andover,  says:  "Paul,  I 
think,  we  must  believe,  gave  his  pagan  converts  no 
command  to  keep  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  a  sab- 
bath of  the  law.  Nor  is  it  put  in  any  such  relation, 
so  far  as  I  am  aware,  by  any  teacher  of  the  Christian 
church  in  the  early  centuries."  ^  Reply:  These  state- 
ments, even  though  wholly  true,  are  only  negatives. 
Any  number  of  these  would  fail  to  equal  one  positive. 
These  authors  do  not  affirm  that  the  early  fathers 
declared  the  fourth  commandment  abolished,  yet  they 
lean  towards  that  conclusion.  They  imply,  at  least 
the  first  two  authors  imply,  that  since  the  fathers  did 
not  undertake  to  found  the  Christian  Sabbath  on  the 
fourth  commandment,  we  may  not.  But  that  conclu- 
sion we  think  is  not  warranted.  The  fathers  may 
not  have  brought  this  j)recise  point  under  their  in- 
vestigation, except  a  few  of  them  in  isolated  in- 
stances. Their  circumstances  may  not  have  led 
them  to  do  so.  They  may  not  have  known  as  much 
on  this  particular  question  as  we  ought  to  know. 
The  author  of  the  article  in  "  Sabbath  Essays"  just 
referred  to,  wisely  says  of  the  fathers:  "  We  are  in  a 
better  position  than  were  they  to  see  the  true  rela- 
tions of  the  new  economy  to  the  old."  ^  In  conse- 
quence of  this  truth  we  claim  that  we  may  base  the 
observance  of  the  Lord's  day  on  the  fourth  command- 
ment, though  the  Christian  teachers  of  the  early  cen- 
turies did  not.  We  expect  to  show  that  it  would 
have  been  unnatural  for  them  to  do  so,  though  nat- 
ural for  us. 
But  some  go  farther,  and  say  that   the    fathers 

1  Sabbath  Essays,  p.  227. 

2  Sabbath  Essays,  p.  230. 


FATHERS  ON  CEREMONIAL  AND  MORAL  LA  WS      185 

taught  that  the  fourth  commandment  is  actually  abol- 
ished. Dr.  Hopkins  says:  "The  universal  sentiment 
of  the  early  Christian  church  was  that  the  fourth  com- 
mandment had  been  abrogated  as  a  law,  together  with 
the  rest  of  the  Jewish  ritual  to  which  it  belonged."  ' 
From  this  we  dissent,  and  expect  to  prove  it  to  be  an 
error.     We  therefore  attempt  to  show: 

The  early  fathers,  in  rejecting  the  seventh^day  sab- 
bath of  their  time  did  not  discard  the  moral  elements 
or  the  original  Sabbath,  nor  the  septenary  propor- 
tional positive  element,  but  only  the  septenary  or- 
dinal positive  time  element.^  That  is,  their  question 
of  debate  was,  whether  the  seventh  day  or  the  first 
should  be  kept  sacred.  Yet,  not  so  much  whether 
the  first  should  be,  for  that  was  in  general  assumed 
and  declared,  but  whether  the  seventh  was  still  bind- 
ing. Now,  it  were  possible  for  them  to  have  that 
simple  question  in  mind, — what  really  j:)ertained  to 
the  ordinal  time  element, — without  at  the  same  time 
discussing  whether  one  tenth  part  of  the  decalogue 
was  abolished.  They  might  even,  in  appealing  or 
referring  to  the  fourth  commandment,  do  so  merely 
to  show  that  it  did  not  require  unalterable  observance 
of  the  seventh  day;  that  God  was  not  inconsistent 
with  himself  in  causing  the  seventh  day  to  be  set 
aside  and  the  first  to  be  kept;  that  the  sacredness  of 
the  seventh  day  was  not  such  that  it  could  not  be 
cancelled.  They  might  discuss  that  question  with- 
out discussing  whether  the  whole  fourth  command- 
ment in  its  entire  length  and  breadth  were  abrogated; 
and  that  we  claim  was  the  phase  of  the  discussion. 

'  Pittsburgh  Address. 

2  See  Bib.  Sac,  Vol.  iixvii.  pp.  164,  430,  431,  434,  435. 


186  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Had  they  contended  that  the  fourth  commandment 
was  abolished  they  would  have  had  far  more  opposi- 
tion than  they  did,  and  the  discussions  preserved  to 
us,  and  even  the  mere  allusions  to  the  subject  would 
show  it.  The  Christians  of  that  age,  holding  to  the 
sacredness  of  the  Old  Testament  as  they  did,  could 
not  have  maintained  themselves  against  the  Jews  and 
Judaizing  Christians  if  they  had  been  understood  to 
hold  and  teach  that  one= tenth  j)art  of  the  decalogue 
was  stricken  out. 

But  many  of  the  allusions  to  this  subject  by  the 
early  fathers  occur  in  their  addresses  to  pagan  rulers 
and  philosophers,  in  which  they  speak  of  the  Chris- 
tian custom  and  rule  of  keeping  Sunday  as  the  Lord's 
day.  And  in  all  that  was  said  to  them  there  was  no 
occasion  to  involve  more  than  the  ordinal  time 
element.  They  had  with  the  pagans  no  reason  to  go 
farther  back  for  their  authority  than  to  the  apostles 
and  Christ.  And  that  same  authority,  so  near  at 
hand,  and  so  thoroughly  accepted  by  even  all  Judaizing 
Christians,  was  their  all-sufficient  appeal.  Jesus  had 
risen  from  the  dead;  thenceforth  the  day  was  sacred; 
that  was  enough;  there  was  no  occasion  in  their 
minds  to  get  authority  from  the  decalogue.  Hence, 
their  references  to  the  fourth  commandment  were  in 
rebutting  objections,  and  were  generally  or  always  to 
this  point — the  obligation  to  keep  the  seventh  day 
can  be  remitted.  And  that  simple  question  touches 
only  the  ordinal  time  element,  and  does  not  involve 
the  question  whether  what  God  gave  as  his  law  on 
Mount  Sinai,  written  in  tables  of  stone,  were  in  one 
tenth  part  effaced.  With  us  it  is  quite  different.  The 
early  fathers  looked  back  only  a  few  years  for  their 


FATHERS  ON  CEREMONIAL  AND  MORAL  LA  WS      187 

authority.  One  or  more  of  them  had  touched  the 
hands  of  an  ai:)ostle;  with  others  there  was  only  one 
between  themselves  and  him.  But  we  at  the  best 
must  look  back  nearly  two  thousand  years.  Looking 
thus  more  than  half  way  to  Sinai,  our  minds  inevit- 
ably demand  that  we  look  to  Sinai  itself.  Havinp^ 
no  visible  personal  authority,  as  the  earlier  of  the 
fathers  had,  nor  any  with  only  one  or  tw^o  genera- 
tions between  them  and  il.  as  others  of  the  fathers 
had,  and  being  obliged  to  rest  on  written  testimony 
and  authority,  we  necessarily  demand  all  that  can  be 
had.  And  therefore  Christians  of  this  day  summon 
not  only  Christ's  resurrection  and  the  apostles' 
teaching  and  example,  but  they  instinctively  demand 
also  Sinai's  law.  Besides,  they  cannot  l)ear  to  admit 
that  the  moral  law  given  by  Jehovah,  in  any  of  its 
elements  wherever  found,  is  abolished.  Times  and 
seasons  and  dispensations  may  change,  but  the  intu- 
itive feeling  is,  that  a  moral  truth  or  law  is  never 
repealed.  These  things  we  say,  not  to  be  accepted 
w^ithout  proofs,  but  as  preparatory  to  a  right  under- 
standing of  the  fathers  on  the  question  whether  in 
discarding  the  seventh  day  they  discarded  also  the 
fourth  commandment. 

It  was  assumed  by  all  the  early  Christians,  that 
their  first  or  Lord's  day  was  to  come  as  often  as  the 
seventh  day  had.  In  effect  they  assumed  that  the 
septenary  propoiiional  time  element  was  to  remain. 
This  came  by  intuitive  deductions  and  divine 
assumptions,  and  therefore  was  not  debated.  They 
also  assumed  that  their  sacred  day  was  to  be  devoted 
to  sacred,  or  devotional  and  sacred,  commemorative 
purposes.     The  modern  view  of  some,  that  keeping 


188  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

every  day  alike  (Rom.  xiv.  5)  involved  no  special 
observance  of  the  Lord's  day  not  only  had  no  favor, 
but  seems  to  have  had  scarcely  a  thought  from  the 
fathers.  The  more  reliable  commentators,  as  EUi- 
cott,^  Meyer,^  Lightfoot,^  agree  that  the  Pauline 
reference  in  Eomans,  to  which  we  have  just  referred, 
pertains  only  to  Judaistic  ceremonial  days.  And 
since  the  fathers,  as  far  back  as  the  apostolic  era,  as 
we  have  shown,  undividedly  agree  as  to  the  obser- 
vance-of  the  Lord's  day,  they  could  have  had  no 
sympathy  with  the  thought  of  keeping  no  day  at  all, 
or  all  days  the  same. 

No  adequate  conception  of  this  subject  can  be  ob- 
tained without  a  view  of  the  seventh^day  Sabbath  as 
it  was  generally  regarded  and  observed  by  the  Jews 
in  the  patristic  era.  Jesus  made  various  corrections 
of  abuses  of  the  Sabbath,  but  we  are  not  to  under- 
stand that  those  reforms  widely  prevailed  among  the 
Jewish  people  of  that  age,  or  that  the  Christians, 
even,  so  far  adopted  them  as  to  have  all  their  false 
notions  and  practices  immediately  corrected. 

The  Rabbinical  doctors  still  taught,  and  the  people 
still  believed,  the  strangest  absurdities  respecting 
Sabbath  desecration.  The  Rabbins  enumerated 
thirty=nine  principal  prohibited  works,  each  having 
its  long  list  of  secondary  or  subordinate  works,  per- 
forming any  one  of  which  was  a  violation  of  the  Sab- 
bath. The  principal  were  such  as  ploughing,  sowing, 
reaping,  threshing,  grinding,  healing,  hunting,  bear- 
ing burdens,  etc.  Hence,  teachers  and  people  in 
general  still  believed  it  unlawful  to  heal  a  sick  man 

'  Com.  Gal.  iv.  10  (Am.  ed.).  ^Com.  Rom.  xiv.  5. 

^Com.  Gal.  iv.  10,  and  his  reference  to  Origen. 


FA THEiiS  ON  CEREMONIA L  AND  MORA L  LA  WS      189 

(John  V.  16)  or  to  loose  a  crippled  woman  from  her 
bonds  (Luke  xiii.  14)  on  the  Sabbath;  unlawful  for 
the  healed  one  to  carry  a  light  cushion  on  which  he 
had  been  resting,  as  he  went  to  his  home  (John  v.  10) ; 
unlawful  on  the  Sabbath  to  pick  a  head  of  wheat  and 
shell  it  in  the  hand  to  appease  hunger,  for  that  would 
be  both  reaping  and  threshing;  unlawful  to  walk  on 
the  grass,  for  the  bruising  of  the  tender  leaves  would 
be  a  kind  of  grinding;  '  unlawful  to  wear  shoes  with 
nails  in  them,  for  that  would  be  bearing  a  burden, 
and  so  be  a  violation,  they  said,  of  the  divine  precept 
in  Neh.  xiii.  10;  unlawful  to  carry  any  burden,  ex- 
cept upon  hoih  shoulders  instead  of  upon  one,  the 
former  rendering  the  task  so  light  that  it  would  not 
really  be  a  burden;  unlawful  to  carry  water  to  any 
animal,  for  that  would  be  bearing  a  burden,  though 
lawful  to  fill  a  trough  with  water  and  lead  the  animal 
to  watering  (Luke  xiii.  15),  for  then  the  animal 
would  carry  the  water;  unlawful  to  put  an  ointment 
or  plaster  on  a  diseased  eye  for  the  purpose  of  heal- 
ing it,  though  allowable  to  do  it  to  allay  the  pain;  un- 
lawful, as  the  Essenes  held,  to  remove  a  dish  or  any 
vessel  out  of  its  place;  ^  or,  as  one  class  of  Samaritans 
held,  to  remove  one's  self  ou  the  seventh  day  from 
the  place  or  posture  in  which  sunset  found  him  on 
the  sixth  day.  ^ 

Other  superstitious  notions  were  subsequently  add- 
ed, some  of  them  in  the  time  of  the  fathers;  as,  an 
animal  fallen  into  a  ditch  should  not  be  removed  on 

^  Jennings  Jewish  Antiquities,  Vol.  ii.  p.  157. 
^  Heylin's  Hist.  Sab.  Part  i.  chap.  8.  sec.  2. 
8  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  p,  2759;  also,  Farrar's  Life  of  Christ, 
Vol.  1.  p.  432. 


190  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

the  Sabbath,  though  some  nourishment  might  be 
thrown  to  it,  no  one  might  whistle  a  tune  or  play  on 
an  instrument;  no  Jew  might  milk  his  kine  on  the 
Sabbath  day,  but  might  get  another  to  do  it,  and 
then  purchase  the  milk;  the  lame  might  use  a  staff 
on  the  Sabbath,  but  the  blind  might  not;  no  one 
might  carry  money  in  his  purse  or  pocket;  no  one 
should  knock  at  a  door  with  a  ring  or  hammer;  no  one 
might  walk  through  a  stream  on  stilts,  for  he  would 
carry  the  stilts;  a  tailor  must  not  go  out  on  Friday 
afternoon  with  his  needle  fastened  to  his  raiment, 
lest  he  forget  it  and  carry  that  burden  on  the  Sab- 
bath; a  cock  must  not  have  a  ribbon  on  its  leg,  for 
that  would  be  carrying  a  burden;  a  physician  must 
not  be  sent  for  on  the  Sabbath;  one  suffering  from 
rheumatism,  must  not  have  the  afflicted  part  rubbed 
or  fomented,  for  that  would  be  labor;  no  one  must 
wear  a  false  tooth,  for  that  might  necessitate  labor;  ^ 
no  one  catch  a  flea  while  it  hopped  about,  for  that 
would  be  a  kind  of  hunting;  and  still  other  strictures 
were  put  upon  the  Sabbath-life,  too  trivial  or  too  of- 
fensive to  mention. 

Such  was  the  Sabbath  known  to  both  Jews  and 
Christian  converts  from  Judaism  in  the  early  Chris- 
tian era;  such  the  Pharisaic  Jews  insisted  should  be 
observed,  and  the  Judaizing  Christians  complained  of 

^  Respecting  "a  false  tooth  and  a  tooth  of  gold,"  there  were 
two  rulings  given  in  a  passage  relating  to  women;  one  by  a 
Rabbi  alloxving  a  person  to  wear  such  tooth;  the  other  made  by 
his  superiors,  —  the  wise  men,  — forbidding  a  woman  to  wear 
it  on  going  out  of  her  house  on  the  Sabbath,  because  there 
would  be  a  possibility  of  its  falling  out  of  her  mouth;  in  which 
case  she  would  be  obliged  to  resort  to  labor  in  order  to  restore 
it.  — Mishna,  Sabbath,  chap.  vi.  5,  Rev.  Selah  Merrill,  D.  D. 


f-A  THERS  ON  CEREMONIA  L  A  ND  MORA  L  LA  WS      1 91 

their  Christian  brethren  if  they  did  not  observe  it 
In  these  circumstances  it  were  preposterous  to  sup- 
pose that  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  as  known  to  the  fath- 
ers in  the  early  Christian  era  was  identical  with  that 
of  the  fourth  commandment.  It  was  rather  like  the 
'  Sabbaths  which  God  could  not  away  with '  in  the 
prophet's  time  (Isa.  i.  13)  ;  it  was  the  Jewish  pos/YiW 
and  did  not  contain  the  moral  and  holy  elements 
which  the  Lord  placed  in  the  Sabbath  of  the  deca- 
logue. In  such  associations  even  the  name  "Sab- 
bath "  had  lost  much  of  the  sweetness  it  was  origi- 
nally designed  always  to  have.  The  early  Christians 
turned  with  pleasure  to  the  new  name,  and  new  in- 
stitution in  part,  the  Lord's  day.  The  existing  Jew- 
ish Sabbath  had  become  a  reproach ;  and  after  Christ 
and  his  apostles  had  given  such  significance  to  the 
first  day,  it  were  easy  for  earnest  and  simple  believers 
to  transfer  to  it  their  affections  for  the  one  sacred 
day.  Especially  so,  when  the  current  of  their 
thoughts  and  feelings  was  turning  from  types  to  the 
antitype,  and  the  Jews  and  Judaizing  nominal  Christ- 
ians were  more  or  less  absorbed,  and  wished  to  absorb 
others,  with  the  mere  outward  and  ceremonial  of  the 
Sabbath,  and  of  other  Jewish  institutions.  The 
fathers  did  not  stop  to  philosophize  on  what  they  did, 
in  some  respects  they  knew  not  what  they  did;  yet, 
emphatically,  it  was  not  the  Sabbath  as  an  institution 
that  they  fully  rejected,  but  the  Sabbath  as  an  ordi- 
nal day,  the  Jewish  seventh^day. 

Though  the  fathers  did  not  attempt  to  philosophize 
on  this  subject,  there  was  a  philosophy  in  their  con- 
duct. They  engaged  in  the  practical  question  of  pro- 
tecting the  churches  against  Judaism,  against  the  ef- 


192  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

forts  of  some  to  impose  on  the  Christian  conscience 
Rabbinic  superstitions,  and  Judaic  institutions  that 
had  accomplished  their  end  and  passed  away.  The 
chief  of  these  were  sacrifice,  circumcision,  Judaic 
feasts,  and  the  Jewish  Sabbath  of  that  time.  But 
neither  apostles  nor  fathers  said  aught  against  these 
until  for  animal  sacrifice  was  substituted  the  blood  of 
Christ;  for  circumcision  of  the  flesh  that  of  the  heart, 
and  for  baptism  in  respect  to  the  seal  of  the  covenant; 
for  the  Passover  feast,  the  Lord's  supper,  and  for  the 
Jewish  or  seventh-day  Sabbath,  the  Lord's  day.  The 
apostolic  and  patristic  aim  was  to  bring  Christians 
away  from  the  old  to  the  new.  Clearly,  they  were 
only  Jewish  institutions  which  they  sought  to  dis- 
place. If  there  are  other  sabbatic  elements  than  the 
merely  Jewish — and  we  have  seen  that  there  are — of 
those  the  fathers  did  not  treat.  All  principles  and 
institutions  that  are  common  to  mem  they  left  un- 
touched. They  opposed  sabbatizing  only  as  they 
opi3osed  Judaizing.  Their  testimony  bears  at  this 
day  only  against  Saturday  Sabbatarianism,  not  against 
the  Lord's-day  Sabbath.  Even  Robertson,  who  says 
that  Paul  declared  the  Sabbath  "abbrogated,"  ^  says 
also  of  the  apostle  Paul's  teaching:  "To  urge  the  ob- 
servance of  the  Sabbath  as  indispensable  to  salvation, 
was,  according  to  him,  to  Judaize;  'to  turn  again  to 
the  weak  and  beggarly  elements,  wherewith  they  de- 
sire to  be  in  bondage.'"^  Of  course  the  Christian 
fathers  rejected  such  observance  of  the  seventh-day 
Sabbath;  but  in  that  rejection  they  did  not  embrace 

1  Sermons  (Second  Series),  pp.  201,  202,  209;  also  (First  Series), 
pp.  116,  118. 

2  Ibid.  (Second  Series),  p.  204. 


FATHERS  ON  CEREMONIAL  AND  MORAL  LA  WS      193 

the  rejection  of  the  whole  fourth  commandment.  We 
must  examine  in  detail. 

One  writer,  to  sustain  his  theory  of  "  the  emancipa- 
tion of  Christians  from  the  fourth  commandment 
as  a  law,"  ^  refers  to  Barnabas.  This  is  the  passage 
from  which  he  quotes:  ''Furthermore,  he  saith  unto 
them,  'Your  new  moons  and  Sabbaths  I  cannot  away 
with.'  Look  ye  how  he  saith,  'Your  present  Sab- 
baths are  not  acceptable  unto  me,  but  the  Sabbath 
which  I  have  made,  in  the  which,  when  I  have  fin- 
ished all  things,  I  will  make  the  beginning  of  the 
eighth  day,  which  is  the  beginning  of  the  new  world.' 
Wherefore,  also,  we  keep  the  eighth  day  unto  glad- 
ness, in  the  which  Jesus  also  rose  from  the  dead,  and, 
after  that  he  had  been  manifested,  ascended  into  the 
heavens."  -  One  inference  drawn  from  this  by  Prof. 
Hopkins  is, — "That  as  an  outward  ceremonial  observ- 
ance God  rejected  it"  [the  Sabbath].  Reply :  1.  He 
did  reject  the  mere  formal  Sabbath  in  Isaiah's  time 
(Isa.  i.  13),  2,  The  argument  of  Barnabas  is  to  the 
point,  that  God  rejected  the  formal  Jewish  Sabbaths 
in  his  own  time.  What  he  says  makes  no  decision 
on  the  true  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  commandment, 
except  by  implication  that  the  seventh  day  was  not 
to  be  kept  by  Christians. 

Another  inference  made  is,  ^^  That  even  under  the 
Old  Testament  it  [the  Sabbath]  was  to  be  kept  holy 
chiefly  as  a  symbol  of  future  good.  "  Reply :  1.  The 
Lord's  day  taking  substantially  the  place  of  the  Sab- 
bath, might  also  be  a  symbol  of  future  good,  even  of 

^  Prof.  S.  M.  Hopkins,  Pittsburgh  Alliance  Address. 
2  Apostolic  Fathers  (Jackson  and  Fisher's  ed.),  p.  97;  see  also, 
Ant.  Nic.  Lib.  Vol.  i,  p.  128. 


194  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

the  heavenly  rest.  2.  Barnabas  seems  to  have  a  con- 
ception that  the  Lord's  day,  •'  the  eighth  day, "  is  a 
kind  of  Sabbath.  He  says:  "  But  the  Sabbath  which 
I  have  made,"  as  Jackson  and  Fisher  translate.  Al- 
though the  word  "  Sabbath  "  is  not  expressed  in  the 
original,  it  seems  clearly  to  be  implied,  and  to  have 
some  relation  to  the  "  eighth  day. "  as  though  that 
took  the  place  of  the  Sabbath  in  the  new  dispensa- 
tion. A  third  inference  by  Prof.  Hopkins  is,  —  Bar- 
nabas teaches  that  the  import  of  the  Sabbath  of  the 
old  dispensation  "was  realized  in  the  blessings  of 
the  gospel."  Reply:  Not  realized  without  one  sa- 
cred day  in  seven;  "  Wherefore  also  we  keep  the  eighth 
day."  From  all  this  we  conclude,  that  since  the  for- 
mal Sabbaths  of  Isaiah's  time  did  not  emancipate  the 
Jews  from  the  real  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  command- 
ment, the  Jewish  Sabbath  of  Barnabas's  time  did  not 
emancipate  Christians  from  that  command,  except 
from  the  observance  of  the  seventh^day.  All  other 
principles  in  that  command  stand  unchanged.  The 
direction  concerning  the  "  six  days "  is  untouched 
The  observance  of  a  proportional  seventh  part  of 
time  is  unaffected,  because  that  is  had  in  the  keep- 
ing of  the  "  eighth  day. "  The  element  of  "  convoca- 
tion "  remains,  for  Justin  Martyr  particularly  tells  us 
of  the  public  services  held  by  Christians  on  "  Sun- 
day. "  The  date  of  Barnabas's  epistle  is  conceded  by 
late  and  able  editors  to  have  been  within  the  first 
quarter  of  the  second  century.  '  The  writer  must 
have  been  living  when  the  apostle  John  died.  His 
conception  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  of  that  time  prob- 
ably accorded  with  the  one  then  current  among 
*  Apostolic  Fathers  (Jackson  and  Fisher's  ed.),  p.  88. 


PaTHERS  on  ceremonial  and  moral  la  WS      196 

Christians.  Therefore,  his  view  is  initial  and  repres- 
entative, and  as  a  key  it  may  assist  in  understanding 
others  of  the  fathers. 

Prof.  Smyth  has  cited  Ignatius  in  favor  of  the 
view  that  the  fourth  commandment  was  ''  limited  as  a 
statute"  to  the  old  dispensation;  is  "no  longer  liter- 
ally binding,"  "  no  longer  formally  prescriptive," 
"not  for  us  an  outward  ordinance."  Yet,  he  does 
not  go'as  far  as  some.  He  holds  that  the  fourth  com- 
mandment is  "a  revelation  to  us  of  a  creative  counsel 
and  purpose  of  God  in  which  we  have  a  part  as  well 
as  the  chosen  people,"  that  it  "  suggests  universal 
maxims,"  "is  still  directory,"  "discloses  permanent 
and  authoritative  i)rnciples,  to  be  conscientiously  ap- 
plied as  j)?'/><c//)?es."  ^  Reply:  1.  We  think  there  is 
an  inconsistency  in  saying  that  the  fourth  command^ 
ment  was  "limited  as  a  statute"  "to  the  old  dispen- 
sation," and  "is  still  directory"  under  the  new.  For 
whatever  is  divinely  directory,  is  it  not  substantially 
a  statute?  There  is  also  an  inconsistency  in  saying 
that  that  command  is  "  no  longer  literally  binding," 
and  yet  has,  or  "  discloses,  permanent  and  authorita- 
tive principles,  to  be  conscientiously  applied." 
Where  are  the  principles  to  be  thus  applied,  except  in 
itself?  And  are  not  those  principles  moral  elements? 
And  if  to  be  conscientiously  applied,  are  they  not 
"  literally  binding"  ? 

The  passage  which  he  quotes  from  Ignatius  is  this: 
"  Be  not  deceived  with  strange  doctrines,  nor  with 
old  fables  which  are  unprofitable.  For  if  we  still  live 
according  to  Jewish  law  we  acknowledge  that  we 
have    not  received  grace:  for  the  divinest  prophets 

»  Sabbath  Essays,  pp.  235,  236. 


19G  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

lived  according  to  Jesus  Christ.  ...  If,  then 
they  who  were  conversant  with  ancient  things  came 
to  newness  of  hope,  no  longer  sabbatizing,  but  living 
according  to  the  Lord's  [day],  on  which  also  our  life 
sprang  up  by  him  and  his  death,  .  .  .  how  can 
we  live  without  him.  .  .  .  Therefore,  having  be- 
come his  disciples,  let  us  learn  to  live  according  to 
Christianity.  .  .  .  For  Christianity  did  not  be- 
lieve into  Judaism,  but  Judaism  into  Christianity."  ^ 
Reply:  1.  The  part  bearing  distinctly  on  our  subject 
is  this  phrase:  "No  longer  sabbatizing. "  It  was  the 
Jew^ish  sabbatizing  of  that  age;  for  that  it  was  which 
Ignatius  opposed.  That  sabbatizing  did  not  involve 
the  whole  of  the  fourth  commandment.  It  was  sim- 
ply the  keeping  of  the  seventh  day  after  the  Jewish 
manner  of  that  time.  The  two  were  not  the  same 
any  more  than  a  vitiated  part  is  the  whole  of  a  gen- 
uine and  pure  thing.  Therefore  the  passage,  we 
think,  does  not  teach  any  thing  detrimental  to  the 
fourth  commandment,  except  that  the  seventh  day  is 
not  to  be  kept  now  that  we  are  to  live  "according  to 
the  Lord's  day."  2.  Ignatius  opposes  the  keeping 
of  the  Lord's  day  to  the  keeping  of  the  seventh  day: 
"  No  longer  sabbatizing,  but  living  according  to  the 
Lord's  [day]."  That  fact  emphatically  suggests  that 
the  first  day  takes  the  place  of  the  seventh.  And  as 
the  Jewish  vitiated  seventh  day  of  that  time  did  not 
absorb  the  whole  of  the  fourth  commandment, — far 
from  it, — the  Lord's  day  must  and  does  fall  into  the 
place  left  vacant  by  the  apostolic  striking  out  of  the 
ordinal  seventh  part. 

1  Sabbath  Essays,  pp.  227,  228;  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  i.  pp.  179, 
180, 181,  182,- 183. 


FATHERS  ON  CEREMONIAL  AND  MORAL  LAWS      197 

The  same  author  in  "  Sabbath  Essays,"  cites  Jus- 
tin Martyr,  and  says  that  he  "  nowhere  alludes  to  the 
Lord's  day  as  a  fulfilment  of  the  Sabbath."  ^  Reply: 
1.  It  was  not  a  fulfilment  of  the  original  Sabbath  in 
all  respects.  It  had  not  the  same  ordinal  time,  nor 
the  Jeivish  ceremonial  observances  which  in  the  Jew- 
ish economy  were  added  after  the  decalogue  was  giv- 
en. But,  2.  The  question  is  not  what  Justin  did  not 
teach,  but  what  he  did  teach.  Did  he  teach  that  the 
fourth  commandment  is  made  void,  as  some  say,  or 
made  void  except  as  to  "  principles,"  as  this  author 
believes?  He  taught  neither;  unless  the  "principles," 
which  are  not  revoked,  embrace  all  but  the  ordinal 
seventh^day  part.  He  did  teach  that  the  seventh 
day  was  no  longer  binding,  and  that  the  first  day  was. 
He  did  not  analyze  the  elements  as  we  now  may;  but 
what  he  actually  did  was, — he  taught  that  the  seventh 
day  which  the  Jews  held  that  the  Christians,  and  all, 
ought  to  keep,  was  no  longer  in  force,  as  it  was  under 
the  old  dispensation.  This  he  might  teach  without 
saying  or  holding  that  the  fourth  commandment  was 
revoked,  or  revoked  except  some  "  principles."  What 
we  wish  to  know  is,  w^hether  in  this  our  day  we  may 
appeal  to  the  fourth  commandment.  We  fail  to  see 
that  Justin  taught  that  we  cannot. 

3.  Consider  how  Justin  approached  Christianity  and 
biblical  truth.  His  father  and  grandfather  seem  to 
have  been  Romans.  ^  In  customs  he  seems  to  have 
been  a  Greek.  ^  He  evidently  had  no  early  instruc- 
tions in  the  Scriptures.     He  studied  various  philoso- 

1  Sabbath  Essays,  p.  228. 

2  Address  of  First  Apology;  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  ii.  p.  7. 

3  Discourse  to  Greeks;  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  ii.  p.  279. 


198  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

phies,  found  them  unsatisfactory,  learned  of  Christ 
and  the  prophesies  concerning  him,  and  there  found 
rest,  ^  without  coming  into  the  Christian  faith  as  we 
now  generally  do  through  the  moral  law.  As  a  phil- 
osopher he  begins  to  preach  Christ.  His  most  vig- 
orous and  learned  opponents  are  Jews,  and  questions 
about  the  law  he  gets  from  them.  He  encounters 
Trypho,  either  in  fact  or  in  imagination,  and  debates 
with  him.  At  the  outset,  Trypho,  counselling  him, 
begins  thus:  "If,  then,  you  are  willing  to  listen  to  me 
.  .  .  first  be  circumcised,  then  observe  what  or- 
dinances have  been  enacted  with  respect  to  the  Sab- 
bath, and  the  feasts,  and  the  new  moons  of  God;  and, 
in  a  word,  do  all  things  which  have  been  written  in 
the  law;  and  then  perhaps  you  shall  obtain  mercy 
from  "God."  '  What  Sabbath  did  Trypho  mean? 
Plainly,  that  which  the  unbelieving  Jews  then  kept, 
and  which  the  Christians  did  not  consider  them- 
selves bound  to  keep.  Did  Justin  have  any  concep- 
tion of  it  as  the  equivalent  of  the  fourth  command- 
ment? It  were  violence  to  suppose  it.  See  another 
jut  of  evidence  that  it  was  the  Jewish  ceremonial  day. 
Justin  says  to  Trypho,  "  think  it  not  strange  that  we 
drink  hot  water  on  the  Sabbath,"  ^  indicating  that 
the  Christians  did  not  regard  the  ritual  law  forbid- 
ding fires  on  the  Sabbath,  as  still  binding.  The  Sab- 
bath that  Justin  had  in  mind  all  through  this  dis- 
cussion is  that  which  the  Jews  would  impose  upon 
him.  And  that  was  no  more  the  real  Sabbath  of  the 
command  than  that  formal  and  false  one  of  apostate 
Jews  in  Isaiah's  day. 

1  Dialogue  with  Trypho;  Ibid,,  p.  96. 

2  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  ii.  p.  97.  ^  i^id.,  p.  123. 


FATHERS  ON  CEREMONIAL  AND  MORAL  LA  WS       199 

And  what  was  the  law  which  Trypho  had  in  mind 
in  the  foregoing  passage?  Clearly  it  was  the  ritual 
law:  ''Observe  what  ordinances  have  been  enacted 
with  respect  to  the  Sabbath,  and  the  feasts,  and  the 
new  moons."  If  he  had  in  mind  the  fourth  command- 
ment at  all,  it  was  the  seventh=day  part  of  it,  which 
the  Christians  regarded  as  set  aside,  or  which  as  Paul 
said  sho.uld  with  each  one  be  optional  (CoL  ii.  16). 
As  the  apostle  joined  feasts  and  new  moons  and  Sab- 
baths in  the  same  list,  so  repeatedly  did  Trypho  and 
Justin,  *  and  with  like  meaning,  that  of  rites  and  cer- 
emonies, and  not  of  the  decalogue.  The  only  blame 
which  Trypho  casts  upon  the  Christians  is,  as  Justin 
says:  "That  we  do  not  live  after  the  law,  and  are  not 
circumcised  in  the  flesh  as  your  forefathers  were,  and 
do  not  observe  Sabbaths  as  you  do. "  ^  And  Trypho 
puts  the  same  in  this  form:  "And  do  not  alter  your 
mode  of  living  from  the  nations,  in  that  you  observe 
no  festivals  or  Sabbaths,  and  do  not  have  the  rite  of 
circumcision;  and  further,  resting  your  hopes  on  a 
man  that  was  crucified,  you  yet  expect  to  obtain  some 
good  thing  from  God,  while  you  do  not  obey  his  com- 
mandments. Have  you  not  read  that  that  soul  shall 
be  cut  off  from  his  people  who  shall  not  have  been 
circumcised  on  the  eighth  day?"  ^  By  both  Justin's 
and  Trypho's  representations,  living  "after  the  law" 
was  being  circumcised,  keeping  feasts,  and  keeping 
Sabbaths;  and  that  according  to  Trypho,  was  obey- 
ing God's  "  commandments. "  It  was  indeed  true 
with  the  Jews  of  that  day,  in  practice  and  widely  in 

^  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  ii.  pp.  97,  99,  109,  115. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  98. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  99. 


200  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

theory,  that  obeying  the  law  was  observing  rites  and 
ceremonies,  and  not  the  ten  commandments.  "Ye 
tithe  mint  and  anise  and  cummin,  and  have  left  un- 
done the  weightier  matters  of  the  law"  (Matt,  xxiii. 
23).  Trypho,  referring  to  circumcision  on  the  eighth 
day,  continues:  "But  you  despising  this  covenant, 
rashly  reject  the  consequent  duties, "  the  duties  im- 
plied by  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  Continuing 
in  this  strain  he  adds:  "you  do  not  observe  the  law," 
by  which  he  means  the  ritual  law.  In  the  next  chap- 
ter Justin  replies,  and  sets  forth  the  "new  covenant," 
which  takes  the  place  of  the  old  one,  and  quotes 
from  Jeremiah  (xxxi.  31,  32)  the  passage  which  the 
writer  in  Hebrews  (viii.  8,9)  also  quotes,  in  expound- 
ing the  Scriptures  concerning  the  covenant  of  the 
new  dispensation.  In  the  same  chapter  he  speaks  of 
a  "  final  law, "  which  "placed  against  law  has  abroga- 
ted that  which  is  before  it, "  and  he  calls  Christ  "  the 
new  law,  and  the  new  covenant. "  ^  The  law  against 
which  Christ  as  the  "eternal  and  final  law  "  is  placed, 
is  only  the  ritual  and  ceremonial;  never  is  he  placed 
against  the  moral,  or  anything  moral  in  the  ten  com- 
mandments. Justin  says:  "  The  law  promulgated  on 
Horeb  is  now  old,  and  belongs  to  yourselves  alone, " 
by  which  he  means  the  ritual,  and  not  the  moral  law; 
because  he  afterwards  indicates  that  Christ's  sum- 
mary of  the  ten  commandments  was  for  all,  and  is 
still  obligatory:  "  I  think  that  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ  spoke  well  when  he  summed  up  all 
righteousness  and  piety  in  two  commandments.  "  ^ 
When   Christ  made  that  summary  the  fourth  com- 

1  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  ii.  p.  100. 

2  Ibid.,  d.  217. 


FA TUERS  ON  CEREMONIAL  AND  MQRAL  LA  WS      201 

mandment  stood  unchanged;  and  so  it  did  in  Justin's 
opinion  when  he  wrote,  except  that  he  said  in  substance 
that  the  Jewish  seventh  day  was  no  longer  binding. 
But  in  his  first  apology  he  represents  the  Sunday  ser- 
vices to  be  full  as  many  and  sacred  as  ever  were  those 
of  the  seventh  day;  and  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho 
he  shows  that  the  day  itself  was  sacred,  because  he 
calls  it  "the  first  of  all  the  days, "  '  He  also  si^eaks 
of  it  as  *'  the  first  day  after  the  Sabbath,"  apparently 
as  though  in  his  mind  it  in  some  sense  took  the  place 
of  the  Sabbath,  or  seventh  day  in  the  commandment. 
Condemning  the  idea  of  fulfilling  the  law  of  God  by 
eating  unleavened  bread,  and  of  being  pious  by  being 
idle  on  the  Sabbath,^  he  speaks  of  keeping  '•'  perpet- 
ual Sabbath, "  and  indicates  that  the  ofiice  of  the  real 
Sabbath  was  to  breathe  sacred  influence  and  induce  a 
genuine  holiness  that  would  last  through  all  the  week. 
Then,  all  sin  repented  of  and  put  away,  there  would  be 
"kept  the  sweet  and  true  Sabbath  of  God."  The 
new  dispensation  is  not  devoid  of  such  a  Sabbath,  for 
it  is  better  than  the  old;  and  the  "  perpetual  Sabbath," 
which  Justin  says  "  the  new  law  requires  "  us  to  keep, 
is  not,  as  we  h  ave  seen,  destitute  of  a  weekly  sacred 
day. 

Referring  to  Justin's  statement  that  the  prophets 
taught  the  keej)ing  of  Sabbaths  as  truly  as  did 
Moses,  Prof.  Smyth  in  "  Sabbath  Essays"  says:  "It 
is  clear  that  he  had  no  idea  that  the  Sabbath  was 
hallowed  in  the  worship  offered  by  Christians  on  the 
Lord's  day."  ^      Reply;  He    had  no  idea  that  the 

1  Ibid.,  p.  139. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  101. 

*  Sabbath  Essays,  p.  22t). 


202  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Jewish  seventh  day  and  the  ritual  Sabbath  was  hal- 
lowed on  the  Lord's  day.  But  the  fourth  command- 
ment has  nothing  about  offering  sacrifices,  or  renew- 
ing shew^bread,  or  not  building  fires  on  the  seventh 
day.  Setting  those  all  aside,  and  coming  to  the 
very  spirit  of  worship  and  praise  and  to  the  keeping 
of  sacred  time — whether  the  seventh  day  or  "the  first 
of  all  the  days," — and  what  difference  is  there  betw^een 
the  two  weekly  seasons  of  hallowed  time?  Very  lit- 
tle, or  none.  Having  the  latter  now,  what  do  we 
have  but  in  substance  all  the  moral,  and  one  or  more 
of  the  positive  elements  of  the  fourth  commandment? 
Dr.  Hessey,  in  commenting  on  Justin  Martyr's  writ- 
ings on  this  theme,  says  that  he  "  speaks  of  the  whole 
of  a  Christian's  life  being  a  perpetual  Sabbath," 
speaks  also  of  Sunday  being  held  in  especial  honor. 
It  is  obvious,  that  as  holy  scripture  does,  he  is  in 
the  one  case  spiritualizing  the  now  defunct  Jewish 
law,  and  in  the  other  mentioning  a  Christian  ordi- 
nance on  its  own  independent  grounds." '  Reply, 
We  have  shown  that  when  Justin  speaks  of  the  Sab- 
bath with  reference  to  law,  he  speaks  of  the  "defunct" 
Jewish  ritual  law,  and  not  of  the  moral  law.  Of 
course,  Sunday  has  "  its  own  independent  grounds," 
in  respect  to  the  ordinal  time=element,  as  compared 
with  the  seventh=day  Sabbath.  But  that  does  not 
imply  that  they  have  not  both  a  common  substratum 
of  sacred  religious  purposes,  and  of  proportional 
time= element,  and  of  connection  in  the  same  com- 
mandment that  gives  injunction  concerning  the 
other  six  days  of  the  week. 

Dr.  Hessey  elsewhere  has  this  remark;  "  No  Isra- 

^  Sunday,  pp.  43,  4:4. 


FATHERS  ON  CEREMONIAL  AND  MORAL  LA  WS     208 

elite  could  observe  the  fourth  commandment  inde- 
pendently of  its  development  in  the  remainder  of 
the  books  of  Moses."  ^  Reply;  With  equal  truth  he 
might  have  added,  that  we  in  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation can  observe  Sunday  in  all  the  unaltered  ele- 
ments of  the  fourth  commandment,  independently  of 
the  ritual  additions  of  any  of  the  laws  of  Moses,  and 
in  accordance  with  all  the  new  services  given  to  the 
weekly  sacred  day  in  the  new  era  of  the  church. 

Professor  Hopkins,  in  commenting  on  the  name 
"  Sunday,"  given  by  Justin  to  the  Christian  sacred 
day,  and  on  the  reasons  which  Justin  assigns  for 
observing  it,  says;  "The  explicit  rejection  here  not 
only  of  the  Jewish  term  '  Sabbath,'  but  of  the  reasons 
on  which  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  in  the  decalogue 
was  founded,  are  highly  significant."^  Reply:  1. 
Christ  rose  from  the  dead  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week.  The  Roman  name  for  the  first  day  of  the 
week  at  that  time  was  "  Sunday."  Justin  in  his 
account  of  Sunday,  on  which  Professor  Hopkins 
comments,  addresses  the  Roman  Emperor,  and  two 
philosophers,  one  the  son,  and  the  other  the  adopted 
son  of  the  Roman  emperor,  and  also  the  Roman  sen- 
ate '•  with  the  whole  people  of  the  Romans."  In 
such  circumstances  it  was  the  most  natural  for  him 
to  use  the  Roman  name,  Sunday,  for  the  Christians' 
sacred  weekly  day.  And  that  he  used  the  Roman 
name,  we  contend,  is  no  good  reason  for  supposing 
that  Justin  considered  the  fourth  commandment 
abrogated.  2.  With  such  controversy  between 
the  Jews   and   the   Christians,  and  so  much  perse- 

'  Sunday,  p.  117. 

^Pittsburgh  Evangelical  Alliance  Address, 


204  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

cution  by  the  former  against  the  latter,  the  Chris- 
tians would  be  likely  to  take  a  new  name  for  their 
Sacred  day.  3.  The  Jewish  superstitious  and 
trivial  notions  respecting  the  day  called  the  Sabbath, 
would  inevitably  tend  to  the  use  of  another  name 
among  Christians  for  the  weekly  sacred  day.  And 
the  use  of  such  a  name  would  not  necessarily  or 
probably  imply  that  they  had  set  aside  the  fourth 
commandment  in  all  its  parts.  4.  God  had  given 
them  the  name  "  Lord's  day,"  which  was  far  dearer 
then  than  the  name  "  Sabbath,"  and  therefore 
they  would  not  be  likely  to  retain  the  name  "  Sab- 
bath." 5  The  reason  for  the  Lord's  day  was 
Christ's  resurrection.  And  that,  so  near  the  event, 
was  reason  enough.  Subsequently,  the  fathers 
attempted  to  link  the  Lord's  day  also  to  the  crea- 
tion, as  a  part  of  its  reason.  The  occasion 
was  sufficient  for  a  new  day  and  a  new  name,  but 
we  fail  to  see  that  both  together  are  enough  to 
justify  us  in  the  conclusion  that  one  whole  com- 
mand was  blotted  out;  especially  when  the  new 
day  so  well  adjusts  itself  to  the  place  once  filled 
by  the  old — the  seventh  day.  We  contend  that 
these  writers  fail  to  show  that  Justin  held  that 
the  fourth  commandment  is  abrogated,  or  abrogated 
in  form,  while  some  "principles"  are  left.  He 
teaches  on  this  point  only  this:  that  the  seventh^day 
sabbath  is  not  binding,  and  that  the  first  day,  or 
Sunday,  is. 

Dr.  Hessey,  referring  to  Tertullian's  testimony 
concerning  the  Lord's  day,  says:  ''I  find  in  it  noth- 
ing   Sabbatarian."^      Reply:    Of  course    he    finds 

1  Sunday,  p.  46. 


FA  THERS  ON  CERE  MONT  A  LAND  MORA  L  LA  WS     205 

nothing  in  it  of  the  merely  Jewish  elements  of  the 
Sabbath  at  that  time,  but  that  does  not  prove  that 
there  was  nothing  of  the  fourth  commandment  in 
the  Lord's  day.  In  the  Lord's  day  there  were  cer- 
tainly some  elements  of  the  fourth  commandment, 
or  those  so  far  like  them  as  to  make  them  identical. 
Another  writer,  Prof.^  Smyth,  concurring  with 
Dr.  Hessey,  refers  to  this  statement  of  Tertullian: 
"  The  Scrij)tures  designate  a  Sabbath  eternal  and  a 
Sabbath  temporal."^  The  writer  infers  that  the 
temporal  Sabbath  was  that  enjoined  in  the  fourth 
commandment  in  every  respect.  Rephj :  1.  If  that 
were  a  just  inference,  then  Tertullian's  testimony 
were  in  effect,  not  that  the  tvhole  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment is  abolished, — for  that  pertaining  to  six 
days  would  remain, — but  that  all  the  elements  and 
parts  of  the  Sabbath  of  that  command  were  entirely 
annulled.  Does  Tertullian  refer  to  the  total  Sabbath 
in  every  aspect  of  the  fourth  commandment,  in  such 
sense  that  the  Lord's  day  could  not  come  into  the 
place  of  the  seventh  day?  Turn  to  the  next  page  of 
the  same  volume:  "But  the  Jews  are  sure  to  say, 
that  ever  since  this  precept  was  given  through  Mo- 
ses, the  observance  has  been  binding.  Manifest 
accordingly  it  is,  that  the  precept  was  not  eternal 
nor  spiritual,  but  temporal,  would  one  day  cease. 
In  short,  so  true  is  it  that  it  is  not  in  the  exemption 
from  work  on  the  Sabbath — that  is  of  the  seventh 
day — that  the  celebration  of  this  solemnity  is  to  con- 
sist,  etc."^    It  was  according  to  Tertullian,  merely 

^  Sabbath  Essays,  p.  229. 

2  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xviii.  p.  211. 

3  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  iviii.  p.  212. 


206  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

the  ''seventh  day,"  the  ordinal  timeelement,  of  which 
he  spoke.  It  was  that  which  the  Jews  said  was 
still  "binding,"  and  which  Tertullian  said  was  only 
temporary  and  not  binding;  and  his  whole  argument 
in  this  connection  is  to  show  that  there  consistently 
could  be  the  cessation  of  obligation  to  keep  that 
day.  That  there  was  no  special  sacredness  in  the 
seventh^day  time  itself  to  forbid  a  termination  of 
duty  to  keep  it  sacred,  he  argues  from  Joshua's 
march  of  seven  successive  days — including  the  sev- 
enth— around  Jericho.  Other  Jewish  history  he 
brings  to  the  same  point.  2.  Tertullian  does  not 
say  that  the  fourth  commandment  is  abolished,  he 
does  not  intimate  that  w^e  are  released  from  obliga- 
tion to  do  our  secular  work  on  six  days;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  says  elsewhere,  that  we  should  defer  from 
the  Lord's  day  "  even  our  businessess,  lest  we  give 
any  place  to  the  devil."  ^  That  statement  is  recog- 
nizing our  obligation  still  to  work  six  days  and  rest 
a  seventh,  which  he  claims  is  the  first.  3.  Tertullian 
says  that  Christians  "  ought  to  observe  a  Sabbath 
from  all  '  servile  work '  always,  and  not  only  every 
seventh  day,"^  by  which  he  calls  attention  to  the 
spiritual  significance  of  all  Sabbaths,  but  does  not 
thereby  stulify  himself  by  meaning  that  Christians 
should  not  sacredly  observe  one  day  in  the  week. 
He  had  said  the  contrary.  4.  His  especial  care  in 
speaking  of  the  Sabbath,  to  say  that  he  meant  the 
"  seventh  day,"  as  we  have  seen,  seems  nearly  or 
quite  to  indicate  the  thought  which  was  in  his  mind, 
that  the  Lord's  day  was  very  much  like  the  original 

^Ibid.,  xi.  p.  199.  Sunday  p.  44. 
2  Ibid.,  Vol.  xviii.  p.  211. 


K4  THERS  ON  CEREMONIAL  AND  MORAL  LA  WS     207 

seventh-day  Sabbath.  5.  Tertullian  did  make  a 
clear  distinction  between  God's  sabbaths  and  men's 
sabbaths,  and  hence  he  could  consistently  teach  that 
certain  sabbaths  were  set  aside  without  implying 
that  the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  commandment  was 
annulled.  In  his  argument  against  Marcion,  the 
heretic,  he  comments  on  God's  language  in  Isaiah  (i. 
13.  14)  thus:  "  Eeckoning  them  as  men's  Sabbaths, 
not  his  own,  because  they  were  celebrated  without 
the  fear  of  God  by  a  people  full  of  iniquities."^ 
And  on  the  next  page  he  speaks  of  the  "  Creator's 
Sabbaths,"  thus  distinguishing  them  from  the  false. 
Others  of  the  fathers  had  the  same  distinction  in 
view.  6.  Tertullian  betrays  an  aversion  to  the  use 
of  the  word  "  annul "  respecting  the  true  Sabbath. 
He  says:  "Good  reason  .  .  .  had  the  Lord 
.  .  .  in  the  annulling  of  the  Sabbath  (since  that 
is  the  word  which  men  will  use)."^  He  refers  to 
Joshua's  continuing  his  March  around  Jericho  on 
the  Sabbath,  and  to  Christ  and  his  deciples  plucking 
ears  of  corn  on  the  Sabbath,  and  to  other  acts  which 
to  some  '•  seemed  to  annul  the  Sabbath,"  but  which 
Tertullian  claimed  did  not  annul  it.  It  would  there- 
fore seem  that  the  true  Sabbath  of  God,  as  embraced 
in  the  fourth  commandment,  he  was  never  accus- 
tomed to  consider  "annulled,"  but  merely  "men's 
Sabbaths,"  and  the  "  seventh  day."  His  chief  con- 
cern on  this  subject  was  to  show  that  Christians 
were  authorized  to  keep  the  Lord's  day,  and  not 
bound  to  keep  the  seventh  day. 

Dr.  Hessey  quotes   Irenaeus,  and   finds  evidence, 

lAnt,  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  vii.  p.  219. 
2lbid.,  p.  217. 


208  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

he  thinks,  of  the  "  abolition  of  the  Sabbath;  "'  mean- 
ing, we  suppose,  the  total  abolition  of  the  sabbatic 
institution  of  the  fouth  commandment.  Reply:  1. 
We  do  not  find,  and  Dr.  Hessey  does  not  show,  that 
Irenaeus  said  that  the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment is  abolished.  2.  Irenaeus  says  expressly 
that  the  "  words  of  the  decalogue  .  .  .  remain 
pemanently  with  us,"^  which  means  that  the  deca- 
logue is  not  abolished.  Would  he  not  have  made 
exception  of  the  fourth  commandment,  or  of  the 
purely  sabbatic  part  of  it,  if  he  considered  it  in  all 
respects  annulled? 

Dr.  Hessey  regards  Irenaeus  as  teaching  that  the 
Sabbath  was  "  temporary,"  ^  and  quotes  as  evidence 
this:  "Abraham  himself,  without  circumcision  and 
without  observance  of  Sabbaths,  believed  God,  and 
it  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness."* 
Reply:  1.  We  are  in  a  better  condition  than  Iren- 
aeus was  to  judge  whether  Abraham  was  without 
Sabbaths.  2.  Irenaeus  has  in  mind  the  seventh-day 
Sabbath,  which  he  argues  is  not  now  to  be  observed, 
but  he  does  not  come  to  the  point  of  saying  that  all 
that  was  meant  by  the  Sabbath  in  the  fourth  com- 
mandment is  utterly  abolished.  He  certainly  held 
to  the  '*  Lord's  day,"  the  weekly  celebration  of 
Christ's  resurrection;  and  concerning  that  in  the 
testimony  of  the  fathers,  as  Dr.  Hessey  says,  "no 
diversity  exists."^  3.  Irenaeus  makes  a  clear 
distinction  between  the  "  decalogue  "  and  the  "  laws 

^  Sunday,  p.  44.  2  ^nt.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  v.  p.  424. 

^Sunday,  p.  44. 

*Ant.  Nio.  Lib.,  Vol.  v.  pp.  422,  428. 

'^Sunday,  p.  45. 


FA  TREES  ON  CEREMONIAL  AND  MORAL  LA  WS     209 

of  bondage,"^  and  in  the  laws  of  bondage  he  places 
the  Sabbath;  and  yet  says  that  the  decalogue  is  per- 
manent, and  that  the  laws  of  bondage — the  ritual  law 
— were  "  cancelled  by  the  new  covenant  of  liberty." 
Apparently,  then,  the  Sabbath  which  he  has  in  mind 
is  not  the  pure  one  of  the  fourth  commandment,  but 
the  ceremonial  one  of  the  Jews,  which  they  insisted 
the  Christians  ought  to  keep.  It  had,  indeed,  its 
root  in  the  commandment,  but  was  sadly  misshapen 
and  perverted  in  its  growth.  Irenaeus  and  all  the 
fathers  could  say  that  that  was  no  longer  binding;  but 
not  one  of  them,  we  think,  says  that  either  the  fourth 
commandment  or  the  total  sabbatic  part  of  it  is  abro- 
gated. 4.  Irenaeus  takes  the  language  of  Paul  in 
Col.  ii.  16,  and  ascribing  it  to  all  the  apostles,  says: 
"  The.  apostles  ordained  that  we  should  not  judge  any 
one  in  respect  to  meat  or  drink,  or  in  regard  to  a 
feast  day,  or  the  new  moons,  or  the  Sabbaths."^  It 
is  certain  that  by  "  Sabbaths  "  he  means  the  seventh 
day,  the  day  that  the  Jews  contended  all  ought  to 
keep.  Tertullian  also  quotes  Col.  ii.  16,  with  the 
same  interpretation,^  and  teaches  that  the  law  "  has 
been  abolished";  but  informs  us  that  he  refers  to 
the  "  figurative  types  "  of  Christ,  the  ceremonial  law. 
Yet  he  denies  to  Marcion  his  claim  that  there  is  any 
•'  breach  of  peace  between  the  gospel  and  the  law."  * 
He  also  in  one  instance,  we  have  seen,  explains  that 
by  the  word  "  Sabbath  "  he  means  "  seventh  day." 
These  two,  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  are  among  the 

^Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  v.  p.  425. 
2Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  ix.  p.  177. 
sibid.,  vii.  p.  473. 
*Ibid.,  p.  35. 


210  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

most  noted  and  reliable  of  the  Fathers.  Their  inter- 
pretation of  the  passage  in  Colossians  agrees  with 
that  we  have  heretofore  given;  and  since  they  are  so 
united  and  positive,  that  must  have  been  the  current 
view  in  the  primitive  era,  and  it  utterly  disallows 
seventh-day  sabbbatarianism.  On  the  other  hand, 
since  by  "  Sabbath "  they  mean  the  seventh  day 
merely,  which  the  Jews  kept  in  distinction  from  the 
Christian  keeping  of  the  first  day,  their  view  gives 
no  sanction  to  the  theory  that  the  setting  aside  of  the 
seventh  day  cancels  the  whole  fourth  commandment, 
or  the  whole  sabbatic  part  of  it.  They  by  no  means 
would  give  so  much  credit  to  the  Jewish  seventh  day 
as  to  confess  that  dropping  it  was  dropping  one 
tenth  part  of  the  decalogue. 

The  writer  in  "  Sabbath  Essays"  Prof.  Smyth,  ap- 
peals to  the  fathers  "as  witnesses  that  the  early 
church  betrays  no  consciousness  of  a  legal  institution 
of  the  Lord's  day  by  the  apostles."  ^  Reply:  1.  The 
apostles  and  early  Christians  did  not  regard  their  new 
law  of  love,  or  any  part  of  it,  as  cold  legalism.  They 
had  too  much  pleasure  in  keeping  their  "  first  of  all  the 
days"  Ho  look  at  it  with  the  eye  of  mere  legality. 
2.  Yet,  we  claim  to  have  shown  that  they  regarded  it 
as  one  of  their  most  serious  obligations,  as  well  as 
privileges,  to  observe  "Sunday,"  or  the  "Lord's 
day."  ^  They  traced  that  day  to  the  apostles  for  its 
authority,  *  just  as  truly  as  Israel  of  old  traced  the 
seventh  day  observance  to  Sinai.  Its  establishment 
had  with  them  the  force  of  law. 

1  Page  230. 

2  Justin  Martyr;  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  ii.  p.  139. 

3  Bib.  Sac,  Vol.  xxxvii.  pp.  672-677. 
*Epiphaniu8;  also  Irenaetis,  Ibid.,  p.  667. 


FA THERS  ON  CEREMONIA L  A ND  MORA L  LAWS     211 

The  same  nuthor  in  "Sabbath  Essays"  says  again: 
"I  cannot  but  think  it  impossible  that  they  [the 
apostles]  should  have  appointed  the  Lord's  day  as  a 
continuation  of,  or  literal  substitute  for,  the  sabbath 
of  the  commandment,  and  the  early  churches  have 
remained  in  ignorance  of  the  fact,  and  the  early 
fathers  have  written  as  they  did."  '  Beply :  1.  None 
claim  that  the  Lord's  day  is  "a  continuation  of,  or 
literal  substitute  for  the  sabbath  of  the  command- 
ment." It  is  another  day,  and  has  another  com- 
memoration, and  some  other  services.  It  has  none  of 
the  peculiarly  Jewish  ceremonial  services,  which  are 
not  named  in  the  command,  but  were  added  after  it 
w^as  given.  2.  We  think  we  have  shown  in  a  previous 
Chapter,  that  under  apostolic  direction  a  change  of 
observance  was  made  from  the  seventh  to  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  the  latter  taking  its  place  in  the 
weekly  cycle  as  the  former  did,  and  having  other  ele- 
ments of  the  fourth  commandment.  We  think  also, 
that  thus  far  we  find  no  testimony  in  the  writings  of 
the  early  fathers  which  presupposes  or  teaches  that 
the  fourth  commandment  is  abolished,  or  even  the 
whole  sabbatic  part  of  it.  Hence,  since  the  fourth 
commandment  in  a  sense,  or  to  some  extent,  still 
stands,  while  one  sacred  day  in  the  week  has  been 
abrogated  and  another  instituted,  it  is  proper  to  sup- 
pose and  say  that  the  latter  day  has  in  substance, 
though  not  in  full  form,  taken  the  place  of  the  former, 
and  it  is  both  proper  and  obligatory  to  appeal  to  the 
fourth  commandment  as  still  binding,  the  modifica^ 
tion  of  it  being  only  in  the  ordinal  time  element.  We 
are  cut  off  from  permission  to  dismiss  the  fourth  com- 

1  Page  230. 


212  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

mandment  by  various  facts ;  among  others  by  the  one 
that  the  Lord's  day  pertains  to  the  very  week,  so  con- 
stantly recurring,  which  the  original  fourth  com- 
mandment so  strictly  designated  and  adjusted.  If 
the  Lord's  day  did  not  at  all  touch  the  week  so  sol- 
emnly appointed  and  constituted  by  the  decalogue, 
then  we  might  say  that  it  is  w^iolly  a  new  institution, 
and  not  a  part  of  the  old  one.  The  moment  we  step 
on  the  threshold  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  we 
tread  on  the  ground  which  had  the  legislation  of 
Sinai's  fiat.  And  it  is  singularly  felicitous  that  the 
language  of  the  fourth  commandment  needs  no 
change  to  suit  it  to  the  new  circumstances.  We  have 
simply" to  understand  the  word  "seventh"  in  the  pro- 
portional and  not  in  both  the  proportional  and  ordi- 
nal sense.  And  the  abrogation  of  the  sacredness  of 
the  seventh  day  while  another  day  in  the  week  is 
made  sacred,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  abro- 
gation of  the  whole  command,  or  of  all  in  it  that  per- 
tains to  sacred  time. 

Victorinus,  opposing  the  doctrine  that  the  Jewish 
seventh  day  should  be  kept,  said  it  was  abolished; 
but  he  did  not  have  in  mind  all  septenary  sacred  time, 
for  he  advocated  keeping  the  Lord's  day,  ^  in  which 
he  embraced  like  moral  elements  with  those  of  the 
Sabbath.  The  non-Sabbath  advocates,  to  sustain 
their  views,  have  to  assume  that  the  Jewish  seventh 
day  under  the  new  dispensation,  is  the  same  as  the 
Sabbath  of  the  fourth  commandment  under  the  old 
dispensation.  We  do  not  find  that  they  have  proved 
this  assumption.  When  they  do  prove  it  they  will 
have  also  in  substance  shown  that  the  Jewish  Sab- 

^Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  iviii.  p.  390. 


FATHERS  ON  CEREMONIAL  AND  MORAL  LA  WS     213 

baths  which  in  Isaiah's  time  the  Lord  could  not  en- 
dure, were  like  that  Sabbath  which  he  commanded  at 
Sinai.  The  fact  that  the  Fathers  called  the  Jewish 
seventh  day  of  their  time  the  "Sabbath,"  does  not 
settle  the  question.  Did  they  embrace  by  that  title 
then  the  Sabbath  institution  of  at  least  fifteen  hun- 
dred previous  years  ?  If  they  did,  it  seems  strange 
they  did  not  say  it.  We  shall  see  they  said  some- 
thing to  the  contrary.  Even  if  they  thought  the  out- 
lawed Jewish  Sabbath  of  their  own  time,  were  the 
Sinaitic  Sabbath,  did  Jehovah  know  they  were  right  ? 
Dr.  Hopkins  cites  the  Apostolical  Constitutions — a 
work  of  uncertain  date  and  author,  though  probably 
of  not  later  date  than  the  close  of  the  fourth  century 
— to  sustain  his  view  that  Christians  are  emancipated 
from  the  fourth  commandment  as  a  law,  and  he 
quotes  thus;^  "He  who  formerly  commanded  to  keep 
the  Sabbath  by  resting  thereon  for  the  sake  of  medi- 
tating on  his  laws,  has  now  commanded  us  to  consider 
the  work  of  creation  and  providence  every  day,  and 
to  return  thanks  to  Gfod."^  Reply:  1.  The  forego- 
ing language  does  not  say  that  the  fourth  command- 
ment is  abolished.  The  author  of  it  is  speaking  of 
modifications  or  enlargements  of  divine  laws  under 
the  Christian  dispensation.  '  He  who  forbade  mur- 
der now  forbids  causeless  anger.  He  who  forbade 
adultery  now  forbids  unlawful  lust.  He  who  forbade 
revenge  now  commands  long-suffering.  So  he  who 
appointed  religious  reflections  on  one  day  now  re- 
quires them  on  all  days.'  Thus  the  influence  of  even 
the  seventh-day  Sabbath  is  brought  down  to  us.     Yet 

'  Pittsbutgh  Address. 

2  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xvii.  p.  168. 


214  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

this  writer,  like  some  others  in  the  Eastern  church 
enjoined  some  observance  of  the  seventh  day,  as  well 
as  of  the  first;  ^  of  the  seventh  particularly  as  a  fast 
day  once  a  year,  on  the  anniversary  of  Christ's  lying 
in  the  grave.  ^  He  has  in  mind  the  command  merely 
in  its  seventh-day  aspect.  2.  This  patristical  author, 
treating  of  the  law,  says:  "The  law  is  the  decalogue, 
which  the  Lord  proclaimed  to  them  with  an  audible 
voice.  .  .  .  And  the  law  is  righteous,  and  there- 
fore it  is  called  law,  because  judgments  are  thence 
made  according  to  the  law  of  nature."^  "And  he 
that  was  the  Lawgiver  became  himself  the  fulfilling 
of  the  law;  not  taking  aw^ay  the  law  of  nature,  but 
abrogating  those  additional  laws  that  w^ere  afterwards 
introduced,  although  not  all  of  them  neither."  *  The 
next  paragraph  takes  up  various  laws  of  the  decalogue, 
apparently  assuming  that  they  w^ere  laws  of  nature, 
and  in  that  paragraph  is  the  passage  quoted  by  Dr. 
Hoiokins.  Also  in  it  the  writer  says,  that  the  Law- 
giver "abrogated  circumcision,  when  he  had  himself 
fulfilled  it."  He  does  not  say  that  he  "abrogated" 
the  fourth  commandment,  or  any  other  of  the  deca- 
logue. His  thought  evidently  is,  that  the  seventh 
day — which  was  the  form  of  Sabbath  known  in  the 
command — had  received  an  amplification  of  its  teach- 
ing to  men,  and  an  "abrogating  of  those  additional 
laws  that  were  afterw^ards  introduced."  3.  It  cannot 
be  that  this  patristical  author  held  that  the  fourth 
commandment,   or   even  the  sabbatic  part  of  it,  is 

1  Ibid.,  p.  143. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  134,  186. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  163. 
nbid.,  167,  168. 


FA  THERS  ON  CEREMONIAL  AND  MORAL  LA  WS     215 

really  abrogated;  because,  as  we  have  stated,  he  en- 
joined religious  services  and  a  fast  on  that  day.  He 
implied  the  continued  existence  of  the  Sabbath  to  an 
extent,  and  therefore  did  not  hold  that  it  was  abol- 
ished. Yet  he  did  not  allow  that  day  to  come  into 
competition  with  the  Lord's  day.  In  the  same  short 
section  on  feast-days  and  fast-days,  he  speaks  of  the 
Lord's  day  seven  different  times  by  that  name,  and 
repeatedly  elsewhere.  On  that  day  he  enjoins  hold- 
ing ''solemn  assemblies"  and  giving  thanks  and 
offering  praise  and  being  joyful  without  fasting,  ^  and, 
while  enjoining  the  celebration  of  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion on  the  Lord's  day,  he  cautions  against  doing  it 
"on  any  other  day  than  a  Sunday."^  4.  This  author 
of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  speaks  four  times,  at 
least,  of  the  " law "  or  ''laws  of  nature " ;  twice  affirming 
that  they  are  not  taken  away,  and  twice  implying  it.  ^ 
In  a  fifth  instance,  referring  to  the  same,  he  says: 
"  He  [the  Lord]  did  not  therefore  take  away  the  law 
from  us,  but  the  bonds."*  That  sentence  is  a  key  to 
the  writer's  thought.  The  pure  "law"  was  not  taken 
away;  the  "bonds"  were.  In  the  bonds  he  included 
"those  additional  laws  that  were  afterwards  intro- 
duced," and  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  doubtless  more 
or  less;  yet  not  wholly,  for  he  would  still  have  it  to 
some  extent  observed.  He  therefore  could  not  have 
meant  that  the  fourth  commandment  was  wholly 
swept  away.  He  must  have  regarded  it  in  some 
sense  as  still  a  "law  of  nature,"  and  hence  permanent. 

^  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xvii.  pp.  143,  186,  189. 

2lbid.,  pp.  138,  186. 

3lbid.,  pp.  163,  167,  168,  170. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  169. 


216  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

By  "  law  of  nature "  he  doubtless  meant  moral  law. 
The  laws  of  nature  include  all  moral  laws,  but  moral 
laws  do  not  include  all  laws  of  nature;  for  example, 
none  of  the  material  laws.  He  must  have  been  ready 
to  assent  to  this, — that  the  fourth  commandment  has 
some  moral  laws,  or  laws  of  nature.  Those  the  Lord 
did  "not  take  away."  Nearly  all  writers  on  this  sub- 
ject,  in  all  ages,  have  claimed  or  confessed  that  there 
are  moral  elements  in  the  fourth  commandment.  Dr. 
Richard  Hooker,  nearly  three  centuries  ago,  gave  lan- 
guage relative  to  natural  or  moral  laws,  which  has 
guided  the  thinking  of  many,  and  obtained  the  con- 
sent of  all:  "Even  nature  has  taught  the  heathens 
.  .  .  first,  that  festival  solemnities  are  a  part  of 
the  exercise  of  religion ;  secondly,  that  praise,  liberal- 
ity and  rest  are  as  natural  elements  whereof  solem- 
nities consist."^  The  fourth  commandment  having 
those  elements,  and  being  apparently  so  recognized 
by  the  author  of  "  Apostolical  Constitutions,"  and  he 
having  said  that  such  laws  or  elements  are  not  taken 
away,  it  will  not  be  right  for  us  to  say  that  he  held 
that  the  fourth  command  is  abrogated,  unless  we 
trace  such  a  sentiment  to  his  pen.  This  we  cannot 
do.  Therefore  we  must  conclude  that  that  one  of  the 
Fathers,  whoever  he  may  have  been,  said  nothing  to 
justify  the  theory  that  Christians  "are  emancipated 
from  the  fourth  commandment  as  a  law."  Christians 
should  accept  the  command  with  such  changes  as 
they  find  have  been  divinely  made. 

Prof.  Smyth  has  said  this:  "The  enforcement  of  a 
positive  commandment  like  the  fourth  would  have 
been  an   im]possibility   in   the   early  propagation  of 

^  Works,  V.  70.  5;  also  Dr.  Hessey  on  Sunday,  p.  100, 


FATHERS  ON  CEREMONIAL  AND  MORAL  LA  WS     217 

such  a  religion.  It  would  have  been  necessary  to 
interpret  the  statutes  in  such  subordination  to  the 
higher  law  of  mercy  as  practically  to  have  suspended 
its  operation.'"  Reply:  1.  Whatever  religious 
service  the  early  Christians  rendered,  they  gave  from 
love,  not  compulsion.  No  doubt  they  faithfully  ob- 
served the  seventh  day  until  the  revelation  came  that 
its  obligation  was  revoked.  Even  after  that  many  of 
them  attended  its  services.  They  had  nothing  of  the 
modern  spirit  which  begs  off  from  as  many  religious 
services  as  possible.  Neglecting  to  assemble  togeth- 
er was  left  to  the  perverts,  and  other  false  professors. 
The  complete  transition  from  the  seventh  day  to  the 
first  could  not  have  been  suddenly  made.  2.  But, 
when  it  came  to  be  understood  that  the  Lord's  day 
was  sacred,  which  must  have  been  early,  and  as  soon 
as  it  received  that  name,  the  reasons  indicate  that 
it  was  conscientiously  observed.  It  is  certain,  as  we 
have  seen  in  a  previous  Chapter,  that  the  apostles  by 
precept  and  example  taught  its  sacred  character. 
The  name  of  their  ''  Lord  "  given  to  it  was  a  guaran- 
tee for  that.  It  being  a  sacred,  religious  day,  the 
customs  of  the  times  required  that  it  as  a  whole  be  to 
some  extent  at  least  sacredly  observed.  It  certainly 
soon  became  the  most  sacred  of  all  their  days.  The 
Christians  would,  then,  so  far  as  they  could,  keep  it 
as  sacredly  as  they  had  thought  their  most  sacred 
days  should  be  kept.  They  would  therefore  soon 
naturally  refrain  not  only  from  all  servile  work,  as  on 
Jewish  feast=days,  but  from  all  work,  as  on  the  Sab- 
bath and  day  of  atonement.  Yet  the  Pharisaic 
sujperstitions  respecting  the  Sabbath  they  would 
^  Sabbath  Essays,  p.  231. 


218  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

reject.  Stillingfleet,  about  two  centuries  ago,  said: 
"As  an  evidence  of  the  solemnity  of  the  times  for 
worship,  the  Romans  as  well  as  other  nations  had 
their  several  feriae,  their  days  set  apart  for  the 
honor  of  their  gods  ...  If  any  work  w^ere  done 
upon  those  days  of  rest,  the  day  was  polluted  .  .  . 
By  which  we  see  as  from  the  light  of  nature,  that 
what  days  and  times,  whether  weekly,  monthly,  or 
anniversary,  were  designed  and  appointed  as  dies 
festi,  for  the  service  of  God,  were  to  be  set  apart 
wholly  in  order  to  that  end,  and  not  to  give  some 
part  to  God  and  to  take  others  to  themselves." '  We 
see  no  reason  for  believing  that  the  early  Christians 
only  half  kept  the  "  Lord's  day."  Where  Tertullian 
speaks  of  deferring  business  on  the  Lord's  day,^  we 
do  not  understand  it  as  the  inculcation  of  a  new  rule, 
but  a  prompting  to  vigilance  in  keeping  an  old  one. 
The  citation  from  Jerome  by  Dr.  Hessey,  which  we 
have  heretofore  considered,  respecting  the  making  of 
garments  on  Sunday  in  his  time  and  locality,  is 
sufficiently  replied  to  by  saying,  that  there  is  no 
evidence  that  it  was  common,  or  that  it  was  done 
except  in  stress  of  circumstances  for  the  poor,  the 
sick,  and  the  enslaved.  The  fact  that  Tertullian, 
nearly  two  centuries  earlier,  laid  down  the  principle 
that  Christians  should  be  careful  to  defer  all  of  their 
secular  "  businesses," — which  probably  implied 
strictness  much  more  to  defer  all  secular  labor  from 
Sunday,  according  to  Jewish  customs, — forbids  in- 
ferring even  a   partial  secularization   of  the   Lord's 

'  Stillingfleet's  Irenicum,  Book  i.  chap.  v.  sect.  4  (London  ed.), 
pp.  216,  217. 
2Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xi.  p.  199. 


FATHERS  ON  CEREMONIAL  AND  M ORAL  LA  WS     219 

day  in  Jerome's  time,  unless  there  had  been  a  falling 
away. 

The  same  writer  says  ag^in:  "Moreover — and  the 
fact  I  am  about  to  state  is  very  significant — the 
apostolic  epistles  and  the  early  Christian  literature 
bring  to  light  many  a  question  of  practical  duty 
about  which  the  Christian  mind  of  those  days  was 
more  or  less  perplexed;  but  there  is  no  trace  of  such 
discussions  as  must  inevitably  have  arisen  had  the 
law  of  abstinence  from  labor  on  the  Lord's  day  for 
master  and  slave,  and  ox  and  ass,  been  regarded  as 
obligatory  upon  Christians  in  the  same  way  that  it 
had  been 'upon  the  Jews."*  Reply:  1.  Mark,  that 
the  Jewish  sabbatic  laws  which  were  superadded  to 
the  fourth  commandment  the  Christians  did  by  no 
means  undertake  to  apply  to  "the  Lord's  day.  2. 
Various  elements  of  worship,  rest,  convocation,  in- 
hering in  that  command,  they  did  embrace  in  their 
observance  of  the  Lord's  day.  3.  The  fact  that 
Constantine  and  other  emperors  who  ruled  in  favor 
of  the  Christians,  did  make  laws  emancipating  them 
from  secular  sabbath  employments,  shows  that  the 
Christian  mind  of  that  age  really  demanded  release 
from  secularities  on  that  day  long  before  the  laws 
were  made.  The  emperors  followed  Christian  senti- 
ment, and  did  not  create  it.  Constantine  enacted 
that  all  suits  and  courts  of  justice  should  be  sus- 
pended on  Sunday,  except  to  emancipate  slaves.  He 
also  forbade  all  military  exercises  on  that  day,  and 
gave  the  privilege  of  attending  church  to  all  Christ- 
ian soldiers;-  and  these  things  before  his  real  conver- 

^Sabbalh  Essays,  p.  231. 

^Neander's  Church  History  (American  ed.  1852),  Vol.  ii.  pp. 
26,  300. 


220  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

sion,  if  he  was  converted  at  all,  which  fact  indicates 
that  he  acted  from  public  Christian  opinion,  and  not 
from  personal  choice.  The  joint  edict  of  Constantine 
and  Licinius  in  behalf  of  religious  freedom — 
which  freedom  is  thought  to  be  the  product  of 
modern  civilization  alone, — made  A.  D.  313,  ran  thus: 
"  That  each  one,  and  the  Christians  among  the  rest, 
have  the  liberty  to  observe  the  religion  of  his  choice, 
and  his  peculiar  mode  of  worship."^  This  implies 
previous  religious  oppression  toward  the  Christians; 
and  consequently,  that  they  often  could  not  do  as 
they  would.  The  same  restraint  is  doubtless  alluded 
to  in  the  twenty=ninth  canon  of  the  Council  of 
Laodicea,  in  which  it  was  declared  that  on  the 
Lord's  day  "  all  Christians  should  abstain  from  their 
worldly  business  if  they  ivere  ahley  ^  This  implies 
that  abstinence  from  worldly  business  on  Sunday 
was  the  desire,  and  the  usual  custom,  of  Christians  in 
that  age,  if  left  to  their  choice.  So  it  was,  it  would 
seem  in  Tertullian's  time,  which  was  half  way  back  to 
the  apostle  John's  day.  4.  Now,  where  did  this 
custom  of  sacredly  keeping  the  Lord's  day  begin,  if 
not  in  the  beginning;  during,  at  least,  the  apostolic 
era?  We  find  the  Lord's  day  most  sacredly  cherished 
through  all  the  centuries  back  to  the  apostles;  none 
of  the  fathers  speaking  more  tenderly  and  reverently 
of  it  than  did  Ignatius,  cont  emporary  of  the  apostle 
John,  and  second  bishop  of  the  church  at  Antioch 
after  the  apostle  Peter.^    At   some   time  subsequent 

'Eusebius,  Bohn's  Eccl.  Lib.,  p.  406;  Neander's  Church  His- 
tory (ed.  1853),  Vol.  ii.  p.  13. 

2  Bib.  Sac,  Vol.  xxxvii.  p.  676;  Neander's  Church  History  (ed. 
1852),  Vol.  ii.  p.  300. 

^Eusebius,  Bohn's  Eccl.  Lib.,  p.  93. 


FA  THERS  ON  CEREMONIA L  AND  MORAL  LA  WS     221 

to  him  we  know  that  the  early  Christians  customarily 
refrained  from  business  and  labor  on  the  Lord's  day, 
and  who  can  show  that  that  sacred  observance  did 
not  begin  as  soon  as  the  day  became  sacred.  We 
trace  its  sacredness  in  Christian  esteem  to  the  apos- 
tles. Who  can  show  that  its  observance  did  not 
begin  with  them,  and  uninterruptedly  continue, 
except  as  necessity  made  some  breach  upon  the  cus- 
tom. We  do  not  find  many  traces  of  "  discussions  " 
about  keeping  the  seventh  day;  but  such  "discus- 
sions would  naturally  not  exist  in  respect  to  the 
Lord's  day  among  those  who  kept  or  observed  it; 
as  so  early  fathers  as  Ignatius  and  Barnabas  testify 
that  the  Christians  of  their  time  did.  None  but 
Christians  were  interested  in  the  question  of  keeping 
that  day.  Universal  agreement  would  prevent  con- 
troversy among  them.  L^niversal  custom  required 
the  sincere  observance  of  all  sacred  days  so  far  as 
practicable.  Hence,  few  or  no  "  discussions  "  on  the 
question  of  keeping  the  Lord's  day. 

We  have  now  examined  all  of  the  patristical  pass- 
ages adduced  by  three  noted  and  able  writers  to  show 
the  abrogation  of  the  fourth  commandment,  or  its  ab- 
rogation except  some  of  its  "principles."  We  do  not 
recall,  indeed,  any  publication  besides  theirs  which 
discusses  this  specific  subject  beyond  a  mere  notice 
of  it.     What  do  we  find? 

1.  These  three  authors  fail  to  bring  forward  a  sin- 
gle passage  from  the  fathers  which  declares  or  indi- 
cates the  belief  of  even  one  of  them  that  the  fourth 
commandment  is  abolished.  No  passage  which  they 
have  cited  refers  at  all  to  that  part  of  the  command 
which  enjoins  labor  during  six  days  of  the  week.    We 


S22  ,  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

must  infer  that  there  is  no  patristical  evidence  in  ex- 
istence which  shows  or  claims  that  the  fonrth  com- 
mandment is  wholly  revoked. 

2.  Some  of  the  passages  which  they  cite  do  claim  or 
indicate  a  partial  abrogation  of  the  fourth  command, 
and  men  are  now  left  to  decide  how  large  a  part. 

3.  There  are  only  two  possible  interpretations  as  to 
the  part  abolished;  one  being  the  whole  sabbatic  part, 
and  the  other  the  ordinal  seventh=day  part. 

4.  We  are  bound  to  sup^Dose  that  it  is  the  least  part, 
if  that  satisfies  or  exhausts  the  language  respecting  it. 

5.  The  least  part  does  exhaust  the  meaning  of  the 
language,  for  several  reasons.  (1)  It  was  that  part 
which  was  almost  the  whole  theme  of  discussion  be- 
tween the  Christians  and  the  Jews  respecting  the  Sab- 
bath question.  (2)  It  was  almost  the  sole  object  of 
the  Christians  on  this  point,  to  have  the  Lord's  day 
kept,  and  the  seventh  day  not  kept  in  any  sense  as  its 
rival.  (3)  In  the  nature  of  the  case  the  Christian 
mind  of  that  age  would  be  satisfied  to  have  the  first 
day  observed,  and  a  release  given  from  obligation  to 
observe  the  seventh  day.  (4)  After  satisfying  the 
Christian  demand  then,  certain  moral  elements  of  the 
original  Sabbath  would  remain.  (5)  Much  of  the  pa- 
tristic language  concerning  the  Sabbath  refers  simply 
to  the  false  Sabbaths  observed  by  the  Jews,  and  not 
to  the  "Creator's  Sabbaths."  (6)  The  patristic  lan- 
guage which  refers  to  the  sabbatic  part  of  the  fonrth 
commandment  does  not  declare,  assume-,  or  imply 
that  that  part  is  totally  annulled,  not  seeming  to  be 
directed  to  that  precise  point;  just  as  it  does  not 
teach  that  the  command  itself  is  annulled.  But  (7) 
that  language  is  devoted  to  two  thoughts:  first,  that 
the  seventh  day,  which  was  the  Sabbath  pointed  out 


FA  THERS  ON  CEREMONIA  L  A  ND  MORA  L  LA  WS     223 

in  that  command,  still  subserves  valuable  ends,  as  the 
typifying  of  rest  and  of  holiness,  and  hence  is  not  ut- 
terly abolished;  and,  secondly,  that  the  seventh  day  no 
longer  held  its  regal  place  among  all  days,  since  the 
Lord's  day  had  been  given  to  Christians  for  them  to 
observe  as  the  chief  of  days.  (8)  The  fathers  do  not 
expressly  teach  that  the  Lord's  day  took  the  place  of 
the  seventh  day  in  the  fourth  commandment;  but  that 
is  a  latent  idea  with  them,  having  subsequent  devel- 
opment, and  they  teach  nothing  contrary  to  it.  Their 
analysis  and  philosophy  on  the  subject  were  not  com- 
pleted, and  the  circumstances  did  not  then  particu- 
larly call  for  the  completion;  for,  the  chief  point  was, 
to  show  that  the  divine  recall  of  obligation  to  observe 
the  seventh  day  was  consistently  possible  in  the  new 
dispensation,  and  that  such  recall  had  been  made,  and 
that  Christians  by  good  right  had  another  day  to  keep. 
Without  saying  all  that  might  have  been  said  on  the 
subject,  they  were  wonderfully  preserved  from  saying 
what  would  have  been  inconsistent  with  the  full  truth 
of  this  point. 

Murphy,  Lange,  Bush,  the  Septuagint,  and  the  or- 
iginal Hebrew  itself,  make  the  injunction  of  "labor" 
in  the  fourth  commandment  positive  to  the  extent  of 
doing  "all  thy  work"  that  thou  hast  to  do.  Since 
a  part  of  the  command  remains,  shall  it  stand  there 
defaced,  mutilated,  dishonored?  Or,  has  it  always 
been  whole,  honored,  by  receiving  the  Lord's  day 
when  the  seventh  day  was  recalled? 

But  the  foregoing  we  regard  as  only  the  negative 
part  of  the  argument, — a  reply  to  three  modern  au- 
thors on  this  subject,  whose  writings  and  veiws  we 
have  quoted,  and  whose  citations  from  the  fathers  we 
have  considered.     There  is  a  positive  side. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBATH   IN    THE    NEW    DISPENSATION. 

There  are  sabbatic  elements  in  the  Lord's  day. 
They  constitute  its  substance.  Hence  there  is  the 
Christian  Sabbath  in  the  new  dispensation. 

1.  The  Lord's  day  has  in  substance  the  same  na- 
ture and  design  as  the  original  Sabbath.  (1)  Both 
are  days  for  bodily  and  mental,  secular  and  spiritual, 
rest.  The  word ''Sabbath"  means  res/,  and  for  rest 
Christians  have  ever  used  the  Lord's  day.  Even  Dr. 
Hessey,  though  utterly  severing  the  two  days  from 
each  other,  says,  "  The  Lord's  day  should  be  consid- 
ered a  day  of  rest."  ^  Professor  Hopkins  says,  ''The 
proper  end  of  the  Christian  Sunday  is  rest  with 
cheerful  worship,  beneficent  activity,  self-help,  and 
self-culture."  ^  Two  days  so  much  alike  would  seem 
to  be  related  to  each  other.  (2)  Both  days  have  a 
high  religious  purpose.  The  Sabbath  was  sanctified, 
and  was  to  be  kept  holy.  The  New  Testament  ob- 
servance of  the  Lord's  day  was  certainly  religious, 
and  in  no  sense  secular,  so  far  as  appears.  Dr  Hes- 
sey says  of  it,  "It  is  a  divinely  sanctioned,  religious 
day  .  .  .  ike  religious  day  of  Christians."  ^  The 
wonder  is  that  the  Sabbath  is  completely  "abrogated." 
as  he  claims,  if  Sunday  is  for  the  same  end.    (3)  The 

*  Sunday,  p.  229, 

^Sabbath  or  Sunday — Pittsburgh  Address. 

3  Sunday,  p.  229. 

224 


THE  SA BBA  TH  IN  THE  NE  W  DISPENSA  TI  ON       225 

acknowledged  religious  services  of  the  early  Christians 
on  the  Lord's  day  were  fully  equal  to  or  more  than 
those  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  The  fullest  descrip- 
tion extant  is  that  given  by  Justin  Martyr.  The  two 
chapters  preceding  are  on  these  important  topics: 
"The  Administrations  of  the  Sacraments,"  and  "The 
Eucharist."  Then,  on  the  "Weekly  Worship  of  the 
Christians,"  he  says:  "And  we  afterwards  continually 
remind  each  other  of  these  things.  And  the  wealthy 
among  us  help  the  needy;  and  we  always  keep  to- 
gether; and  for  all  things  wherewith  we  are  supplied 
we  bless  the  Maker  of  all  through  his  Son,  Jesus 
Christ,  and  through  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  on  the 
day  called  Sunday,"  etc.  ^  According  to  Justin's  de- 
scrij)tion  there  were  in  the  primitive  Lord's-day  ser- 
vices prolonged  reading  of  Scripture,  instructions, 
exhortations,  prayers,  thanksgiving,  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, collection  of  alms,  distribution  of  food  and  other 
articles  to  the  absent  sick,  widows,  and  orphanS:  All 
in  country  and  city  assembled;  and  this  was  the  chief 
meeting  of  the  day.  Sometimes  there  were  other 
meetings  on  that  day,— as  that  of  early  morning, 
spoken  of  by  Pliny.  The  Jewish  and  Christian  pub- 
lic religious  services  were  nearly  identical,  with  the 
addition  among  the  Christians  of  observing  the  Lord's 
supi^er,  exercising  spiritual  gifts,  and  considering 
new  truths.-  (4)  The  early  Christians  held  more 
lengthy  services  on  the  Lord's  day  than  on  other  days; 
it  was  especially  appropriated  to  their  religious  assem- 
blies.    (5)  Their   Lord's  day    services    necessitated 

'  See  remainder  of  paragraph  in  previous  chap. 
2  Smith  and  Barnum,  Comp.  Diet.,  p.   1074;    Jahn's  Archaeol- 
ogy, pp.  501,  502. 
11 


2^6  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

rest  from  secular  labor.  Those  coming  from  the 
country  had  but  little  time  in  the  morning  before 
coming,  and  little  at  evening  after  returning:  No 
evidence  appears  among  the  earliest  fathers  or  their 
contemporaries  that  they  considered  the  Lord's  day 
open  to  secular  purposes.  Lapses  afterwards  do  not 
concern  us  now.  We  have  seen  that  Tertullian 
taught  the  duty  of  abstinence  from  secularities  on 
Sunday.'  Though  Dr.  Hessey  quotes  Jerome  as 
sanctioning  the  making  of  garments  and  visiting  the 
sepulchres  of  apostles  and  martyrs  on  Sunday,  he  yet 
acknowledges  that  the  testimony  of  that  father  is  pos- 
itive in  respect  to  the  religious  observance  of  that 
day.  ^  Moreover,  Tertullian's  era  was  two  centuries 
nearer  the  apostles  than  that  of  Jerome,  and  was  also 
one  of  more  Christian  devotion.  Besides,  the  garment- 
making  may  have  been  exceptional  —  for  the  poor  and 
enslaved.  Dr.  Pusey,  after  examining  many  passages 
of  the  early  fathers,  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  "ab- 
stinence from  business  on  the  Lord's  day,  as  a  religious 
duty,  was  an  early  universal  tradition."^  Professor 
Hopkins  says,  "Agricultural  labor,  marketing,  and  all 
other  necessary  buying  and  selling  went  on  upon  the 
Sunday  as  upon  any  other  day;  that  amount  of  time 
only  being  reserved  which  was  necessary  for  attend- 
ance upon  worship.  From  the  church  Christians  went 
forth  to  their  ordinary  occupations."^  Reply:  Dr. 
Hopkins  gives  no  proof  of  the  truth  of  these  state- 
ments; we  do  not  think  he  can  find  any.     He  seems  to 

»218p. 

2  Sunday,  p.  14. 

^  Morris's  Lib.  of  the  Fathers:  Ephrem's  Homilies,  p.  391.  note: 

*  Pittsburgh  Address. 


THE  SA  BBA  TH  IN  THE  NE  W  DISPENSA  TION       227 

confound  Jewish  feast  days  with  the  Sabbath  and 
day  of  atonement.  On  the  former  all  servile  labor 
was  forbidden,  but  not  business  and  on  the  latter  all 
manner  of  labor  and  business  were  forbidden.  The 
Lord's  day  was  not  a  mere  feast  day  or  less  than  that. 
Doubtless  Christian  servants,  bound  to  Jewish  or 
heathen  masters,  were  sometimes  obliged  to  labor  on 
the  Lord's  day.  But  it  is  wholly  improbable  that 
Christians  spent  the  "first"  and  "chief  "of  all  their 
days  in  a  secular  manner  unnecessarily.  They  regard- 
ed it  as  superior  to  what  the  Sabbath  was  under  the 
old  covenant.  It  was  the  daij  that  they  observed,  and 
not  merely  the  Lord's  supper  on  that  day.  The  fact 
that  they  placed  their  usual  observance  of  that  sacra- 
ment on  that  day  shows  that  they  especially  regarded 
the  dai/.  The  supijer  and  agapae  were  so  important 
that  their  most  sacred  time  would  naturally  be  set 
apart  for  them.  Objection:  Reports  of  law  cases  in 
the  English  courts  affirm  that  in  the  early  Christian 
ages  judicial  courts  were  held  on  Sunday,  and  that  not 
until  the  sixth  or  seventh  century  did  Christians  deem 
it  wrong  to  try  law  cases  on  that  day ;  hence  they 
could  not  have  regarded  the  Lord's  day  as  holy.  Be- 
ply:  We  notice  this  objection,  though  it  comes  late 
to  hand.  It  is  based  on  ''Reports  of  Cases  argued 
and  adjudged  in  the  Court  of  King's  Bench,"  by  Sir 
James  Burrow.^  We  hold  that  Burrow,  first,  does 
not  quote  the  earliest  authorities  on  the  subject,  and, 
secondly,  that  the  courts  to  which  he  refers  were 
ecclesiastical,  or  had  a  religious  purpose.  We  have 
already  adduced  language  from  the  fathers  which 
shows  that  they  did  regard  the  Lord's   day  as  holy. 

^  Am.  Ed.  1808,  Vol.  iii.  pp.  1597-1662.; 


228  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Dionysius,  about  A.  d.  170,  termed  it  "lioly."^  Ter- 
tullian,  about  A.  d.  200,  taught  that  Christians  ought 
to  defer  their  "business"  from  the  "Lord's  day."^ 
Eusebius,  about  A.  d.  315,  said  of  the  Lord's  day, 
"On  this  day  ...  we  assemble,  ,  .  .  and 
celebrate  holy  and  spiritual  Sabbaths."  ^  The  Coun- 
cil of  Laodicea,  A.  D.  363,  voted  that  Christians 
should  rest  from  labor  on  the  Lord's  day,  if  they 
were  able.*  As  soon  as  Christianity  obtained  civil 
power  in  Constantine,  he  abolished  courts  on  Sun- 
day, except  for  the  manumission  of  slaves.  Such  is 
the  testimony  of  Eusebius,  given  about  A. .  d.  330.^ 
Sozomen,  about  A.  D.  420,  said  that  Constantine 
"commanded  that  no  judicial  or  other  business 
should  be  transacted  on  these  [the  Lord's]  days."^ 
Neander,  drawing  from  the  original  authorities,  says, 
"The  emperor,  Constantine,  in  a  law  enacted  previ- 
ous to  the  year  321,  commanded  the  suspension  of  all 
suits  and  courts  of  justice  on  Sunday.  .  .  .  By  a 
law  of  the  year  386  those  older  changes  effected  by 
the  emperor,  Constantine,  were  more  rigorously  en- 
forced, and,  in  general,  civil  transactions  of  every 
kind  on  Sunday  were  strictly  forbidden."  ^  It  was 
Theodosius  I.  who  gave  the  law  of  the  year  386,  to 
which  Neander  refers.^     But  previous  to  that,  A.  D 

1  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.,  book  iv.  chap.  23. 

2  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xi.  p.  199. 

^  Patrologiae  Graece,  Tom.  xxiii.  pp.  1170, 1171;  Stuart's  Cita 
tion  and  Translation  in  Guerney  on  the  Sabbath,  Appendix  B. 
4  Neander's  Church  History  (Am.  ed.  1852),  Vol.  ii.  p.  300. 
^  Life  Const.,  book  iv.  chaps.  18,  19. 

6  Eccl.  Hist.  (Bohn's  ed.),  p.  22. 

7  History  of  the  Church  (Am.  ed.  1852),  Vol.  ii.  p.  300. 
^  Hessey,  Sunday,  pp.  83,  84. 


THE  SA  BBA  TH  IN  THE  NE  W  DISPENSA  TION        220 

368,  under  Valentinian  and  Valens,  a  law  was  made 
which  forbade  the  collection  of  taxes  and  other  dues 
on  Sunday/  And  in  469  Leo  and  Anthemius  grant- 
ed the  Christians  relief  from  civil  proceedings  and 
annoyances  on  the  Lord's  day.^ 

It  follows  from  the  foregoing  evidence  that  the  ob- 
jection based  on  Burrow's  Reports,  namely,  "That 
not  until  the  sixth  or  seventh  century  did  Christians 
deem  it  wTong  to  try  law  cases  on  that  day  [Sun- 
day]," is  utterly  wrong.  For  those  rulers  would 
never  have  enacted  so  many  laws  against  the  holding 
of  courts  on  Sunday,  if  Christian  sentiment  had  not 
desired  it.  That  the  edicts  of  emperors  always  pre- 
vailed with  all  the  people  cannot  be  claimed.  The 
early  laws  of  Christian  emperors  against  paganism 
were  often  transgressed.  Their  edicts  forbidding 
theatres  and  other  spectacles  on  Sunday  were  even 
opposed  by  some  nominal  Christians.  Yet  such  laws 
and  edicts  showed  the  trend  of  the  better  Christian 
sentiment,  which  finally  effectually  forbade  the  sit- 
ting of  courts  on  Sunday.  Burrow  quotes  Sir  Henry 
Spelman,  an  English  lawyer  and  student  of  judicial 
antiquities,  of  about  three  centuries  since.  Spelman 
quotes  a  church  canon  against  holding  courts  on 
Sunday,  of  A.  d.  517,  and  speaks  of  that  as  "fortified 
by  an  imjDerial  constitution "  made  by  Theodosius 
w^hile  yet  Britain  was  under  the  Roman  government 
which  constitution  must  have  dated  a  century  and  a 
half  earlier  than  the  canon.  This  is  a  confession  of 
the    more    influential   Christian    views   that   moved 

^  Schaff's  Church  History,  Vol.  ii.  p.  381;  Hessey,  Sunday,  pp 
83,  84. 

2  Hessey,  Sunday,  pp.  83,  84. 


230  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Theodosius.  Spelman  seems  not  to  have  known  of 
Constantine's  edict  against  Sunday  courts  a  half 
century  previous  to  that  of  Theodosius,  nor  of  the 
many  others  given  by  other  rulers  of  the  fourth  and 
earlier  part  of  the  fifth  centuries.  But  he  refers  to 
Epiphanius,  of  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century, 
— without  giving  page  or  book  of  his  work — as  im- 
plying that  on  the  Lord's  day  "In  his  time  (as  also 
many  hundred  years  after)  bishops  and  clergymen 
did  hear  and  determine  causes,  lest  Christians, 
against  the  rule  of  the  apostle,  should  go  to  law 
under  heathens  and  infidels. "  ^  But  these  were  only 
ecclesiastical  courts  to  settle  difficulties  among  breth- 
ren, or  such  as  they  had  with  unbelievers,  or  "  they 
had  a  religious  purpose."  Whether  these  courts  in 
the  circumstances  were  advisable  or  not,  Christianity 
finally  ruled  them  out,  and  they  do  not  show  or  imply 
that  the  early  Christians  at  any  time  held  or  justified 
purely  secular  courts  on  Sunday.  Spelman  also  re- 
fers to  Philo  Judseus  as  saying  in  his  life  of  Moses 
that  the  cause  of  one  charged  with  gathering  sticks 
on  the  Sabbath  was  heard  on  that  day,  and  he  cites 
the  Talmudists  as  saying  that  their  Sanhedrim  did 
the  same.^  But  these,  too,  were  religious  courts, 
even  if  they  were  the  only  ones  the  Jews  had.  Yet 
such  courts  on  the  Sabbath  are  without  evidence  of 
the  divine  approval. 

Spelman  gives  a  fine  array  of  evidence  showing 
that  the  ancient  Gentile  nations  refused  to  hold  sec- 
ular  courts    during  religious   occasions.      He  says: 

^Spelman's  Works,  Original  of  the  Terms  (London  ed.  1727), 
p.  76. 
^Spelmans'  Works,  etc.,  p.  75. 


THE  SA BBA  TH  IN  THE  NE  W  DISPENSA  TION       231 

"The  Romans  likewise  (whether  by  instinct  of  nature 
or  precedent)  meddled  not  with  lawcauses  during  the 
time  appointed  to  the  worship  of  their  gods,  as  ap- 
peareth  by  the  primitive  law  of  the  twelve  tables 
.  .  .  It  was  so  common  a  thing  in  those  days  of 
old  to  exemi)t  the  times  of  exercise  of  religion  from 
all  wordly  business  that  the  barbarous  nations,  even 
our  Angli,  whilst  they  were  yet  in  Germany,  the 
Suevians  themselves,  and  others  in  those  northern 
parts,  would  in  no  wise  violate  or  interrupt  it.  Taci- 
tus says  [etc.]."'  It  is  not  possible  that  the  early 
Christians  cared  less  for  the  day  that  they  named 
after  their  Lord  than  the  barbarous  nations  cared  for 
their  religious  occasions.  (6)  Since  the  early  Chris- 
tians loorshipped  their  Lord,  the  day  called  by  his 
name  must  have  had  their  sacred  regard.  That  name, 
''  Lord's  day,"  we  find  repeated  by  teaching  of  the 
twelve  apostles  Ignatius,  Dionysius,  Melito,  Irenaeus, 
Clement,  Tertullian,  Origen,  Anatolius,  Victorinus, 
Peter,  Eusebius,  Athanasius — all  within  about  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  apostle  John's  death. 
(7)  Some  essential  principles  involved  in  the 
Lord's  day  would  of  themselves  soon  make  it  more 
sacred  to  the  early  Christians  than  the  seventh  day. 
Regarding  the  Lord  Jesus  as  divine,  they  would 
esteem  his  day  as  divinely  sanctioned.  Redemption 
by  him  would  soon  be  more  precious  in  their  sensi- 
bilities than  the  original  creation.  In  their  regard 
the  new  creation  in  Christ  Jesus  would  soon  super 
sede  the  old  in  material  nature.  The  freshness  of 
Christ's  personal  presence  on  the  earth  would  join 
with  their  sense   of  forgiven  sin  to  make  the  day 

1  Ibid.,  p.  74. 


232  SABBATH  AXD  SUNDAY 

which  commemorated  the  completion  of  his  media- 
torial work  more  dear  to  them  than  the  Sabbath  of 
the  old  dispensation.  Accordingly,  history  presents 
the  fact  which  these  first  principles  prophesy.  The 
Lord's  day  gathers  to  itself  in  the  Christian  heart 
the  special  sacredness  of  days,  and  the  chief  assem- 
blies and  festivals  naturally  transfer  themselves  to  it, 
aside  from  the  previously  shown  fact  that  the  first 
day  was  made  sacred  by  the  apostolic  and  divine 
authority. 

Have  we  not  here  in  the  Lord's  day  the  substance 
of  the  original  Sabbath,  when  not  cumbered  with 
Pharisaic  rules  and  rites?  The  Jewish  and  other 
Christians  had  been  accustomed  to  suspend  labor  on 
their  most  sacred  days.  Would  they  not  ordinarily 
abstain  from  it  on  that  day,  more  precious  to  them 
than  all  others  had  been?  Theodore  Parker,  dis- 
cussing the  Sabbath  question,  here  and  often  correct, 
says;  "The  Romans,  like  all  other  ancient  nations, 
had  certain  festal  days  in  which  it  was  not  thought 
proper  to  labor,  unless  work  was  pressing.  It  was 
disreputable  to  continue  common  labor  on  such  days 
without  an  urgent  reason;  they  were  pretty  numer- 
ous in  the  Roman  calendar.  Courts  did  not  sit  on 
those  days;  no  public  business  was  transacted."^ 
And  did  the  Christians  unnecessarily  labor  to  tran- 
sact business  on  their  most  precious  day — more 
precious  far  than  any  Roman  day  to  Romans?  Un- 
reasonable to  suppose  it?!  Mr.  Parker  says  "  ^  ZZ 
other  ancient  nations^''  thought  it  not  proper  to  la- 
bor on  their  festal  days,  unless  work  was  pressing. 
^Christian  use  of  Sunday,  p.  22. 


THE  SABBA  TH  IN  THE  NE  W  DISPENSA  TION       233 

He   includes  the  Jewish  nation;  and  the  Christian 
nations  after  they  became  Christian. 

We  have,  then,  on  the  Lord's  day  sacred  time, 
rest,  spirituality,  holy  convocations,  Scripture  read- 
ing and  instruction,  the  Lord's  supper,  almsgiving, 
prayer,  praise,  and  thanksgiving.  What  more  was 
ever  had  on  the  seventh  day,  save  sacrifices  and 
ceremonies  now  passed  away?  What  more  can  be 
named  for  the  Lord's  day  to  make  up  the  substance 
of  the  Sabbath? 

2.  The  Lord's  day  and  the  scriptural  Sabbath  of 
the  old  dispensation  were  similar  in  respect  to  the 
actual  restrictions  imposed  upon  men,  and  the  relig 
ious  liberties  granted  them.  The  Lord's  day  svas  re- 
ligiously observed.  The  real  Sabbath  was  always 
free  from  useless  and  burdensome  exactions.  Phari- 
saic restrictions  should  not  be  confounded  with  the 
true  scriptural,  law  of  the  Sabbath.  Work  for  world- 
ly gain  was  forbidden,  but  works  of  mercy  were  al- 
lowed. Healing  the  sick  (Matt.  xii.  13)  and  taking 
medicine  were  right.  Rescuing  an  animal  from  the 
mire  or  a  pit  was  proper  and  obligatory  (Luke  xiv.o). 
Feeding  and  watering  animals  was  a  duty  (Luke 
xiii.  15).  Plucking  ears  of  corn  to  appease  present 
hunger  was  permitted,  opportunity  for  provision  the 
day  previous  not  having  been  given  (Matt.  xii.  1-8); 
but  gathering  manna  on  the  seventh  day  was  forbid- 
den, because  it  would  interfere  with  religious  serv- 
ices, and  it  could  be  gathered  sufficiently  on  the  sixth 
(Ex.  xvi.  29).  Proper  eating  without  vain  feasting 
was  right  ( Luke  xiv.  1 ) ,  A  "  Sabbath  day's  journey  " 
was  proper  by  pharisaic  rule,  though  the  distance 
varied  with  the  size  uf  cities,  and  probably  was  with- 


234  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

out  rule  by  the  real  Scriptures.^  The  use  of  arms  for 
defence  or  other  necessity  was  not  interdicted,  though 
the  Rabbins  had  taught  otherwise.^  The  slaughter 
and  sacrifice  of  animals  in  worship  was  allowed,  en- 
joined, and  even  doubled  on  the  Sabbath  (Num.xxviii. 
9,  10) ;  and  the  shew^^bread,  twelve  loaves  with 
frankincense,  was  to  be  renewed  on  that  day  (Lev. 
xxiv.  5-9).  The  building  of  fires  for  ordinary,  or  at 
least  culinary,  purposes  was  forbidden  (Ex.  xxxv.  3); 
for,  the  climate  was  warm,  their  food  could  be  suffi- 
ciently prepared  without  it,  and  allowing  it  would  en- 
courage gathering  wood  on  the  Sabbath.  After  sun- 
set of  the  seventh  day  they  could  build  fires,  and 
probably  often  then  they  had  their  chief  meal  of 
the  day.  Some  restrictions  were  ceremonial  and 
national,  and  hence  not  always  binding.  God  blessed 
the  seventh  day,  and  it  was  therefore  propitious  of 
good,  cheerful,  joyful,  though  not  to  be  given  to 
finding  secular  pleasure  (Isa.  Iviii.  13).  Religious 
songs  and  instruments  of  music  were,  with  the  divine 
sanction,  used  in  Sabbath  services.  The  appoint- 
ment of  the  day  symbolized  a  covenant  made  with 
God,  enjoining  upon  his  creatures  to  give  him  praise 
and  thanksgiving  for  their  creation  and  keeping. 

In  all  this,  where  are  the  burdens  from  which  we 
should  wish  to  be  delivered?  Where  any  marked 
requisition  in  the  original  Sabbath,  not  ceremonial  or 
national,  which  the  early  Christians  did  not  cheer- 
fully give   in   their   observance  of   the  Lord's  day? 

'  The  Rabbins  doubtless  perverted  Scripture  (Ex.  xvi.  29), 
and  without  authority  made  a  Sabbath-day's  journey  to  be 
anywhere  within  a  city,  and  two  thousand  cubits  outside  of  it. 

2  Smith's  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  p.  2762, 


THE  SABBA  TH  IN  THE  NE  W  DJSPENSA  TION       235 

Have  we  not  in  the  first  day  the  true  sabbatic  ele- 
ments? 

3.  The  Old  Testament  gives  significance  and  em- 
phasis to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  thus  prepares 
for  its  sacred,  religious  distinction  in  the  new  dispen- 
sation. (1)  The  dawn  of  creation,  when  God  said, 
*'  Let  there  be  light,  and  there  w^as  light,"  was  the 
first  of  all  the  first  days,'  With  this  beginning  of 
light  associate  the  fact  that  Christ  is  "the  light  of 
the  world."  (2)  The  next  significant  first  day  was 
that  on  which  the  wave-sheaf  of  the  first=fruits  of  the 
harvest  was  offered  before  the  Lord  on  behalf  of  all 
the  people  (Lev.  xxiii.  11).  That  sheaf  was  the 
symbol  of  life.  With  that  associate  the  fact  that 
Christ  was  "  the  life  .  .  .  of  men."  (3)  Another 
significant  first  day  was  that  on  which  the  two  wave- 
loaves  were  offered  to  the  Lord  (Lev.  xxiii.  15-17). 
That  offering  was  emblematic  of  double  life.  Asso- 
ciate with  that  the  fact  that  Christ  is  doubly  the 
'resurrection"— to  the  body  and  to  the  soul ;  to  the 
mortal  and  to  the  immortal  part.  First  days  in  the 
Old  Testament  are  symbolical  of  Christ's  attributes 
and  relations  to  mankind,  and  seem  to  pre-figure  the 
first  day  of  the  new  dispensation,  which  he  by  his 
resurrection  has  made  immortal  and  glorious. 

4.  The  apostles  gave  a  sabbatic  character  to  the 
Lord's  day.  They  embalmed  it  in  sacred  regard. 
They  dedicated  it  to  the  holiest  religious  services, 
and  such  dedication  was  the  chief  feature  of  the  Sab- 
bath. One  of  them  gave  to  the  Lord's  day  its  most 
excellent  name,  or  else  copied  it  from  the  lips  of  his 
Master.     Objection:   Robertson  says  there  is  no  com- 

'  Prof.  Murphy. 


236  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

mandment  for  changing  Sabbath  observance  from 
the  seventh  to  the  first  day.^  Professor  G.  P.  Fisher 
says  the  change  was  not  by  any  explicit  ordinance.^ 
Therefore  Sunday  is  an  entirely  new  day,  without 
connection  with  the  old.  Reply:  The  moral  ele- 
ments, which  are  the  chief  of  the  two  days,  being 
alike  make  the  days  alike,  and  in  chief  part  identical. 
The  fact  that  there  is  no  positive  command  to  keep 
the  first  day,  with  the  fact  that  the  early  Christians 
kept  it,  indicates  a  somewhat  natural  transition  from 
one  to  the  other.^  If  the  Lord's  day  were  wholly 
new  there  would  probably  have  been  given  specific 
and  recorded  directions  respecting  its  observance. 
The  fact  that  the  fathers  argued  against  observing 
the  seventh  day,  and  in  favor  of  observing  the  first 
instead,  indicates  a  similarity  between  the  days,  and 
in  part  a  transition  of  observance.  The  fact  that  the 
Christians  strictly  kept  the  seventh  day  until  they 
changed  to  the  first  tends  to  the  same  conclusion; 
also  the  fact  that  they  kept  the  Lord's  day  weekly, 
and  not  annually,  and  that  they  observed,  not  merely 
the  supper  on  the  Lord's  day,  but  the  whole  day 
itself.  Again:  There  was  no  "explicit  ordinance" 
for  a  change  from  any  Jewish  to  Christian  institu- 
tions. The  new  commenced  at  a  specific  time;  the 
old  gradually  disappeared.  Circumcision  lingered 
after  baptism  began ;  passover  ceremonies  after  the 
Easter  Lord's  supper  commenced  its  yearly  recur- 
rence ;*   purifying  of  the  flesh  after  the  pentecostal 

^  Sermons  (First  Series),  p.  118,  Shad,  and  Sub.  of  Sabbath. 

2  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  p.  662. 

3  Prof.  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  Am.  Theol.  Review,  Vol.  iv.  p.  306. 
*  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  Art.  "Easter,"  p.  637. 


THE  SABBA TH  IN  THE  NEW  DISPENSA TION       237 

purifying  of  the  Spirit  came  so  wondrously  to  the 
early  church ;  Sabbath  observance  after  that  of  the 
Lord's  day  began  its  control  of  all  Christian  hearts 
and  lives.  Peter,  even  after  the  effusion  of  the 
Spirit  at  Pentecost,  did  not  immediately  learn  the 
fullest  Christian  fellowship  (Acts  x.  28,  34,  35) 
Paul,  notwithstanding  all  his  knowledge  and  Chris- 
tian liberality,  did  not  in  his  early  ministry  omit  all 
ceremonies  of  circumsion,  vows,  and  feasts  (Acts 
xviii,  18,  21).  Baxter  likens  Paul's  temporary 
observance  of  the  seventh  day  after  that  of  the 
Lord's  day  commenced  to  his  observance  of  cir- 
cumcision, purification,  and  Pentecost  after  the 
new  dispensation  began. ^  It  is  evident  from  the 
writings  of  Origen,^  Eusebius,^  and  other  fathers, 
also  from  Neander's  investigations,*  that  some 
ceremonies  of  Jewish  feasts  were  for  a  long  time 
mingled  with  the  Christian  festivals.  Christian 
institutions  commenced  promptly:  the  Jewish  only 
gradually  disappeared.  There  having  been  no  "ex- 
plicit ordinance "  for  a  change  from  Jewish  ceremo- 
nies and  institutions  to  the  Christian  ones,  none  need 
be  expected  for  a  change  from  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
to  the  Lord's  day.  Much  was  left  to  the  evolu- 
tion of  Christian  thought  and  experience. 

5.  The  early  fathers  so  sacredly  regarded  the 
Lord's  day,  and  devoted  it  to  so  holy  purposes,  as  to 
warrant  the  inference  that  it  contains  all  the  moral 
and  unchangeable  sabbatic  elements.     They  derived 

*  Lord's  Day,  chap.  vii.  Arg.  iv.  Vol.  liii.  p.  428. 
2  Against  Celsus,  book  viii.  chap.  22. 

^  Church  History,  book  v.  chap.  23. 

*  Church  History,  Vol.  i.  p.  294-302. 


^38  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

their  views  from  the  apostles — the  earlier  fathers  di- 
rectly, the  later  from  the  earlier.  In  answer  to  the 
seventh-day  Sabbatarians  we  have  seen  that  the  early 
fathers  without  exception  taught,  first,  the  observ- 
ance of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and,  secondly,  that 
the  observance  of  the  seventh  day  was  not  binding. 
In  reply  to  the  Lord's  day  non= Sabbath  advocates  we 
have  seen  that  the  fathers  in  rejecting  the  seventh^ 
day  Sabbath  did  not  discard  the  moral  elements  of 
the  original  Sabbath.  These  three  facts  point  to  a 
fourth — that  the  Lord's  day  contains  sabbatic  ele- 
ments. We  now  adduce  further  evidence  of  the 
same. 

(1)  The  fathers  frequently  contrast  the  Lord's 
day  with  the  Sabbath;  contrast  implies  similarity; 
that  similarity  indicates  sabbatic  elements  in  the 
Lord's  day.  Many  seem  to  have  assumed  that  con- 
trast implies  so  much  dissimilarity  as  to  indicate  an 
utter  difPerence.  On  the  contrary,  Alford  says, 
"  Contrast  partakes  of  two  ideas;  that  of  opposition 
and  that  of  comparisoji.^^  ^  Crabbe  says,  "  Likeness 
in  the  quality  and  difference  in  the  degree  are  requi- 
site for  a  comparison;  likeness  in  the  degree  and 
opposition  in  the  quality  are  requisite  for  a  con- 
trast.''^ ^  The  Lord's  day  and  the  seventh  day  stand 
opposed  to  each  other  in  respect  to  the  day  of  the 
week,  but  are  alike  in  respect  to  their  sacred  charac- 
ter. Being  opposed  to  each  other  in  time-element  or 
"  quality,"  and  having  "  likeness  "  to  each  other  in 
"degree"  or  sacredness  of  character,  according  to 
both  Alford  and  Crabbe  the  two  days  may  be  both 

1  The  Queen's  English  p.  234, 

2  Synonyms,  "  Contrast." 


THE  SABBA  TH  IN  THE  NEW  DISPENSA  TION        239 

contrasted  and  compared,  and  yet  in  the  former  case 
not  be  utterly  dissimilar.  The  contrast  or  the  com- 
parison will  depend  on  the  specific  view  at  any  time 
taken.  Ignatius  speaks  of  Christians  as  "  No  longer 
observing  the  Sabbath,  but  living  in  the  observance 
of  the  Lord's  day," '  which  is  a  contrast  of  the  two 
days  with  each  other.  Barnabas  speaks  of  Chris- 
tians as  keeping  the  eighth  day,^  and  of  the  Lord  as 
abolishing  Sabbaths,^  so  that  they  should  be  no 
longer  kept,  and  of  the  two  days  as  differing  from 
each  other,*  all  of  which  combined  show  a  contrast  of 
the  two  days,  and  yet  imply  a  similarity.  Justin 
Martyr  gives  Trypho  the  reasons  why  Christians  do 
not  observe  Sabbaths,^  and  elsewhere  relates  how 
they  observed  Sunday,® — in  substance  a  contrast. 
Bardesanes  speaks  of  both  the  Jewish  Sabbath  and 
the  Lord's  day,  in  one  passage,  as  different  institu- 
tions, observed  by  two  classes,  yet  in  each  instance 
for  the  same  religious  end.^  Tertullian  speaks  of  the 
Sabbaths  as  once  beloved  of  God,^  and  of  the  sacred 
rites  of  the  Lord's  day,^  implying  a  religious  purpose 
in  each  day,  though  in  different  eras.  Origen  ex- 
pressly contrasts  the  two  days  with  each  other,  giving 
the  superiority  to  the  Lord's  day.'''     The  elements  of 

»  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  i.  p.  180. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  128. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  103. 
*Ibid.,  pp.  127,  128. 

5  Ibid.,  Vol.  ii.  p.  109. 

«  Ibid.,  pp.  65,  66. 

^  Spicilegium  Syriacum,  p.  82. 

8  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xi.  p.  162. 

^bid.,  Vol.  XV.  p.  428. 

^^  Comm.  Ex.  Patrologiae,  Tom.  xii.  p.  346. 


240  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

oj)position  in  the  contrast  made  by  these  and  other 
patristic  writers  must  have  been  difference  of  days  in 
the  week,  difference  in  the  objects  commemorated, 
and  to  some  extent  in  services, — all  of  positive  ap- 
pointment. The  elements  of  similarity  must  have 
been  rest,  holy  convocation,  study  of  the  inspired 
word,  worship  of  God, — all  moral  and  enduring. 

(2)  Some  of  the  fathers  in  effect  even  compare 
the  two  days,  without  contrasting  them,  so  great  is 
the  similarity  of  the  two  in  their  conception.  They 
all  would  have  done  it,  doubtless,  had  not  the  dis- 
cussions of  that  period  been  on  the  differences  be- 
tween the  two  institutions.  Irenaeus  speaks  of  the 
religious  design  of  the  Sabbaths,^  and  of  that  of  the 
Lord's  day.^  Clement  of  Alexandria  indicates  that 
the  seventh  day  in  its  time  was  sacred,  and  that  the 
Lord's  day  is  also.^  Victorinus  speaks  of  the  original 
Sabbath  as  blessed  and  sanctified,  and,  in  the  same 
passage,  of  the  Lord's  day  as  the  one  now  devoted  to 
religious  service.  In  his  conception  the  design  of 
the  former  in  its  time  was  similar  to  that  of  the  latter 
in  this  time.*  Athanasius,  in  his  treatise  on  the  Sab- 
bath, and  circumcision,  clearly  teaches  that  the  Sab- 
bath commemorating  the  end  of  the  old  creation  has 
passed  by,  and  in  its  place  has  come  the  Lord's  day 
commemorating  the  beginning  of  the  new  creation.^ 
Elsewhere  he  says  he  compares  the  Lord's  day  with 
the  Sabbath.®    Augustine  speaks  of  Christians  as  ob- 

»Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  v.  p.  4:22. 
2  Ibid.,  Vol.  ix.  pp.  162,  168. 
»lbid.,Vol.  ii.  p.  284. 
*Ibid.,  Vol.  xviii.  p.  390. 
^  Opera,  Tom.  ii.  f ol.  pp.  56-W. 
®  Horn,  vii,  in  Exod.  v. 


THE  SABBA TH  IN  THE  NEW  DISPENSA TION        241 

serving  the  Lord's  day,  and  then  says:  "  In  the  same 
way  the  fathers  observed  the  rest  of  the  Sabbath 
.  .  .  because  it  was  incumbent  at  that  time."  ^ 
He  thought  the  two  days  were  similar,  both  having 
religious  ixirposes.  Similar  citations  from  other 
fathers  might  be  made.  When  any  of  them  speak  of 
the  Sabbath  as  devoted  to  rigid  fasting,  while  the 
Lord's  day  is  given  to  religious  joy  and  praise,  it  is 
not  of  the  ^original  Sabbath,  but  of  the  seventh  day 
after  the  Lord's  day  has  taken  its  place.  They  some- 
times consented  to  fasting  on  the  seventh  as  a  com- 
promise with  Judaizing  Christians,  but  intended  not 
to  observe  it  in  the  manner  the  Jews  did.  Victorinus 
even  says,  "  Lest  we  should  appear  to  observe  any 
Sabbath  with  the  Jews."  ^  It  is  a  restricted  view  that 
notes  only  the  differ emces  between  the  two  days.  Dr. 
Hessey  says  Clement  recognized  the  Lord's  day  as  a 
''  Christian  ordinance  quite  distinct  from  the  Sab- 
bath."^ On  such  basis  he  and  others  regard  the 
fourth  commandment  a§  obsolete.  But  the  contrasts 
and  comparisons  made  by  the  fathers  between  the 
two  days  indicate  elements  common  to  both  and  iden- 
tical with  the  moral  elements  of  the  Sinaitic  Sabbath. 
Commenting  on  Justin's  reasons  for  calling  the  Lord's 
day  first  or  chief,  Dr.  Hessey  says  he  speaks  of  a 
"  Christian  ordinance  on  its  own  independent 
grounds."  *  Independent  as  to  its  positive  elements, 
not  as  to  its  moral.  Every  day  has  something  com- 
mon with  every  other.     The   Sinaitic   Sabbath  and 

1  Works  (Clark's  ed.),  Vol.  v.  p.  324. 

2  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xviii.  p.  390. 

3  Sunday,  p.  46. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  44. 

15 


242  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

the  Lord's  day  have  common  elements  of  rest  and 
worship,  though  distinct  from  each  other  in  time,  and 
chiefly  distinct  in  events  commemorated,  and  partly 
in  services.  The  Lord's  day,  in  a  sense,  commemo- 
rates God's  rest  from  his  work  of  creation,  as  well  as 
Christ's  resurrection,  because  of  its  septenary  ele- 
ment. The  fathers  kept  this  in  mind  and  linked  the 
day  to  the  weekly  division  of  time  by  making  it  a 
reminder  of  the  beginning  of  creation.  Anatolius 
probably  had  this  in  mind  when  he  said,  "  On  the 
Lord's  day  was  it  that  light  was  shown  to  us  in  the 
beginning."  ^  Gregory  of  Nyssa  speaks  of  that  day 
as  commemorating  both  Christ's  resurrection  and  the 
beginning  of  creation.^  Gaudentius  of  Brescia 
speaks  of  it  similarly.^  Socrates,  the  historian,  dis- 
tinctly notes  the  weekly  occurrence  of  the  Lord's 
day.* 

(3)  The  fathers  employed  ideas  and  phraseology 
descriptive  of  the  Lord's  day  which  they  borrowed 
from  thoughts  and  language  descriptive  of  the  Sab- 
bath.    Dionysius  says, 

"To-day  we  kept  the  Lord's  holy  (dyiav)  day."^  His 
descriptive  word  has  the  same  root  that  the  Septuagint 
employs  in  the  fourth  commandment:  "To  keep  it 
holy;"  the  same  that  it  employs  in  Isaiah  (Iviii.  13): 
"  my  holy  day."  Dionysius  gives  the  same  idea  of 
sacredness  to  the  Lord's  day  that  he  found  given  in 
the  Old  Testament  to  the  Sabbath  ;  and  Eusebius, 
copying    his   expression,    does   not   dissent   from  it. 

^  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xiv.  p.  420. 
2  In  Christ.  Res.;  Opera,  fol.  Colon.  Agrip.,  p.  454. 
^Biblioth.  Veterum  Patrum,  p.  945,  De  Paschae,  Tract  1. 
*  Greek  Eccl.  Hist.,  Vol.  iii.  p.  436,  book  vi.  chap.  viii. 
^  Patrologiae,  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.,  book  iv.  chap.  23. 


fillC  SA  BBA  TH  IN  THE  NE  W  DISPENSA  TION        243 

Athanasius  speaks  of  the  command  to  keep  the 
Sabbath,  and  then  says,  *'So  (6orw^)  we  honor  the 
Lord's  day."  ^  He  borrows  the  idea  of  veneration  for 
the  first  day  from  that  given  the  seventh  on  Sinai. 
The  Council  of  Laodicea  says,  "Christians  ought  not 
to  Judaize,  and  be  at-  ease  on  the  Sabbath,  but  to  work 
on  that  day,  and,  giving  the  chief  honor  to  the  Lord's 
day,"  etc.^  The  implication  is  that  the  honor  for- 
merly given  the  Sabbath  should  now  be  given  the 
Lord's  day.  Theodoret  speaks  of  Christians  as  con- 
secrating, sanctifying  {/adiepouot),  the  Lord's  day;* 
and  though  condemning  the  Ebionites  for  doing  it  in 
connection  with  their  observance  of  the  Sabbath  at 
that  time,  it  is  evidently  the  same  kind  of  consecra- 
tion as  that  formerly  given  to  the  Sinaitic  Sabbath. 
Augustine  speaks  of  the  Sabbath  as  a  "  figure  "  of  the 
spiritual  rest,"^  and  elsewhere  of  the  Lord's  day  as 
'* prefiguring  the  eternal  repose."^  Conceiving  of 
both  days  as  figures  of  the  same  glorious  state,  he 
must  have  derived  that  of  the  Lord's  day  from  that  of 
the  Sabbath.  Eusebius  entitles  the  ninety^first 
(ninety^second  of  our  version)  psalm  "A  psalm  of 
singing  for  the  Sabbath  day";  then  shows  that  there 
is  a  like  provision  under  the  new  dispensation,  and 
that  spending  the  Lord's  day  spiritually  is  like 
observing  the  Sabbath  of  old  spiritually.^  In  his 
view  the  spiritual  character  of  the  Lord's  day  is  ac- 

^  Patrologiae,  Athan.  Tom.  iv.  6,  p.  138,  de  Sab.  and  Cir.  4. 
2  Council  Laod.,  Canon  29  ;  Morris's  Lib.  of  the  Fathers  ;  St. 
Ephrem,  p.  391,  note. 
^  Patrologiae,  Theodoret,  Tom.  iv,  Haeret.  Fabulor.  Lib.,  ii.  1. 
*  Letter,  Iv.  c.  12.  22. 
^  Works,  City  of  God,  book  xiii.  30. 
^  Patrologiae,  Euseb.  Com.  on  Ps.  ici. 


244  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

cordant  with,  and  copied  from,  that  of  the  original 
Sabbath.  Objection:  Eusebius  does  not  identify  the 
Lord's  day  with  the  Sabbath.^  Reply:  It  is  not 
necessary  for  the  present  argument  that  he  should. 
We  look  for  moral  elements  common  to  the  two  days. 
They  could  not  be  identical,  because  their  positive 
elements  are  of  necessity  different.  Objection  Second : 
Eusebius  does  not  "  build  the  observance  of  the  Lord's 
day  on  the  fourth  commandment."^  Reply:  Enough 
that  he  claims  the  Lord's  day  as  religious  and  the 
chief  of  days,  and  does  not,  with  Dr.  Hessey  and  some 
other  modern  authors,  suppose  or  pronounce  the 
fourth  commandment  obsolete.  When  it  is  considered 
that  the  early  Christians  from  the  first  made  the 
Lord's  day  religious,  and  that  it  was  septenary,  like 
the  weekly  religious  day  in  the  old  dispensation,  it 
would  naturally  be  expected  that  sabbatic  thought 
and  language  would  become  associated  with  the  first 
day  of  the  week.  That  tendency  we  find  developed 
more  and  more  as  the  centuries  increase.  It  proves 
that  some  essential  elements  of  the  two  days  are  alike. 
(4)  The  early  fathers,  though  not  designing  any 
such  analysis  and  distinction,  rejected  from  the  Lord's 
day  the  positive  elements,  and  retained  for  it  the 
moral  elements,  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  They  did  a 
like  thing  relative  to  the  original  Sabbath  as  separate 
from  peculiarly  Jewish  rules  and  provisions.  They 
aimed  to  discard  all  th  at  was  merely  Jewish,  not  as 
always  evil,  but  now  superseded.  They  refused  longer 
to  accept  the  seventh  day  as  first  and  chief.  They  re- 
jected the  animal  sacrifices  appointed  for  the  Jewish 

^  Hessey,  Sunday,  p.  301. 
2  Ibid,  p.  800. 


THE  SA  BBA  TH  IN  THE  NE  W  DISPENSA  TION       245 

Sabbath.  The  Jewish  sabbatic  penalties  they  would 
not  transfer  to  the  Lord's  day.  They  early  dropped 
the  Jewish  method  of  reckoning  the  civil  day  from 
evening  to  evening,  and  adopted  the  Roman,  from 
midnight  to  midnight.  They  discarded  also  all  the 
Pharisaic  and  Rabbinical  prohibitions  respecting  the 
Jewish  Sabbath.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  they  pre- 
served the  weekly  division  of  time.  One  day  in  seven 
they  turned  aside  from  their  usual  worldly  occupa- 
tions, rested  from  them,  and  held  religious  services. 
They  put  their  most  valued  religious  services  on  the 
first  day,  as  the  Jews  did  theirs  on  the  seventh.  Many 
Christians,  dependent  for  employment  on  Jews  and 
heathen,  could  not  observe  the  Lord's  day  to  their 
own  satisfaction,  but  the  Christian  desire  and  pur- 
pose found  expression  in  the  writings  of  bishops,  the 
decrees  of  councils,  and  the  edicts  of  emperors,  at 
last.  There  is  unity  in  all  moral  elements,  and  those 
of  the  Jews'  sacred  day  entered  into  that  of  the 
Christians,  and  there  received  addition  in  the  com- 
memoration of  the  Saviour's  resurrection. 

But  objectors  cite  the  language  of  the  fathers 
where  they  liken  the  Judaizing  observance  of  the 
seventh  day  in  their  time  to  the  vain  observance  of 
the  Sabbath  by  formal  and  heartless  Jews  in  the 
prophet's  time.  This  they  deem  proof  that  the  Sab- 
bath is  no  more.  Reply:  The  fathers  rejected 
merely  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  and  observed  the  moral 
elements  of  the  real  Sabbath  in  the  Lord's  day.  The 
Jews  of  their  time,  alike  with  the  formalist  Jews  of 
the  prophet's  time,  were  busy  with  the  mutable  posi- 
tive, while  the  acceptable  worshippers  of  each  age 
absorbed  the  moral  elements.     The  Jewish  positive 


246  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

was  no  more  :  the  moral  of  both  the  original  and  the 
Jewish  continued.  That  God  would  not  accept  the 
Sabbaths  of  the  Pharisaic  Jews  in  the  prophet's  time 
is  no  proof  that  the  fourth  commandment  is  abro- 
gated ;  and  that  the  fathers  would  not  sanction  and 
copy  the  Judaistic  observance  of  the  seventh  day 
after  the  Lord's  day  was  made  sacred  to  Christians  is 
no  evidence  that  the  original  Sabbath  is  wholly 
abolished,  or  that  the  fathers  thought  it  wholly 
abolished, 

(5)  The  fathers  recognized  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  moral  and  the  ceremonial  law,  and  re- 
garded the  former  as  inabrogable,  and  therefore  we 
may  well  expect  to  find  the  moral  elements  of  the 
fourth  commandment  in  some  form  in  the  Lord's 
day.  Barnabas  says,  "  Thou  shalt  not  forsake  the 
commandments  of  the  Lord."^  Justin  Martyr  speaks 
of  law  as  "  abrogated,"  but  it  was  the  ceremonial, 
because  succeeded  by  "the  new  covenant.""  He  also 
speaks  of  the  moral  law  under  the  term  "  two  com- 
mandments "  in  which  Christ  "  summed  up  all  right- 
eousness,"^ and  of  that  "righteousness"  as  "eternal,"* 
which  implies  that  the  moral  law  is  eternal  and  inab- 
rogable. Irenaeus  says,  "  The  Lord  did  not  abrogate 
the  natural  [precepts]  of  the  law."  ^  "  Preparing 
man  for  this  life,  the  Lord  himself  did  speak  in  his 
own  person  to  all  alike  the  words  of  the  decalogue; 
and,  therefore,  in  like  manner  do  they  remain  per- 
manently with  us,  receiving,  by  means  of  his  advent 

1  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol,  i.  p.  131. 

2  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  ii.  p.  100. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  217.  *Ibid.,  p.  U7. 
*Ibid.,  Vol.  V.  p.  412, 


THE  SABBA  TH  IN  THE  NEW  DISPENSA TION        247 

in  the  flesh,  extension  and  increase,  but  not  abroga- 
tion .  .  .  He  has  increased  and  widened  those 
laws  which  are  natural,  and  noble,  and  common  to 
all."*  Clement  of  Alexandria  teaches  that  the 
Mosaic  law  was  the  source  of  all  moral  truths^ — the 
imperishable  law;  yet  one  law  "  was  only  temporary," 
— the  ceremonial,  the  '  *  shadow  of  Christ."  ^  Tertul- 
lian  speaks  of  the  "  primordial  law  of  God  .  .  . 
given  to  Adam  and  Eve  in  paradise,"  and  "  to  all 
nations  the  selfsame  law  ";*  also  of  "  a  law  temporal 
and  a  law  eternal,  formally  declared  ";^  and  of  the 
suppression  or  abolition  of  law  which  was  the  sac- 
rificial and  ceremonial;^  and  of  the  law  which  pre- 
figured Christ,  and  was  replaced  by  the  gospel.^ 
Cyprian:  The  prophets  foretold  the  abolition  of  the 
old  and  the  giving  of  a  new  law, — the  typical,  per- 
taining to  Christ  and  the  new  covenant;^  Theoph- 
ilus:  The  "great  and  wonderful  law,  which  tends  to 
all  righteousness,"^ — eternal  and  permanent;  The 
Clementine  Homilies:  The  original  law,  perpetual  to 
all,  and  cannot  be  abrogated  ;*°  The  Apostolical  Con- 
stitutions: The  '•  law,  complete  in  ten  commands, 
.  .  .  is  never  to  fail  ";  the  "additional  precepts" 
— ceremonial — Christ  "  abolished,"  but  he  confirmed 

'Ibid.,  pp.  424,  425. 

2  Ibid.,  Vol.  xii.  p.  47. 

3  Ibid.,  Vol.  iv.  pp.  153.  164. 
*Ibid.,  Vol.  xviii.  pp.  203,  204. 
5  Ibid.,  p.  215. 

«Ibid.,  p.  216. 

Ubid.,  Vol.  vii.  pp.  436,  437. 

8  Ibid.,  Vol.  xiii.  pp.  86,  87. 

"Ibid.,  Vol.  iii.  p.  115. 

10  Ibid.,  Vol.  xvii,  p.  141, 


248  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

the  "  decalogue  ";  *  Archelaus:  The  law  of  Moses  is 
established^  and  is  consonant  with  the  law  of  Christ;^ 
Augustine:  A  law  which  Christ  came  not  to  destroy, 
but  to  fulfil;  parts  of  a  law  were  in  Christ  fulfilled 
and  removed.^  The  foregoing  testimony  shows  that 
the  early  fathers  do  not  justify  modern  fathers  or 
sons  in  saying  that  the  fourth  commandment  is 
obsolete.  They  imply,  on  the  contrary,  that  the 
decalogue  in  general  and  the  whole  moral  law  re- 
main. Though  rejecting  the  Jewish  Sabbath  in 
their  time,  they  do  not  assume  to  reject  the  fourth 
commandment  proclaimed  at  Sinai.  They  evidently 
are  not  clear  in  their  apprehension  of  the  whole  sub- 
ject, but  they  cannot  find  a  heart  to  discard  even  one 
of  God's  commandments.  Objection:  Epiphanius, 
bishop  of  Constantia,  A.  D.  367,  and  Cyril,  bishop  of 
Alexandria,  A.  d.  412,  say  that  the  Sabbath  was  abol- 
ished.* Reply:  Neither  says  that  the  fourth  com- 
mandment was  abolished.  Reply  Second:  Both 
have  in  mind  the  positive  Jewish  Sabbath  as  con- 
trasted with  the  Lord's  day.  That  Sabbath  was 
abolished;  but  that  was  not  the  whole  of  the  Sabbath 
of  the  fourth  commandment;  it  was  only  a  small  part 
of  it.  Epiphanius  argued  that  the  Lord's  day  was 
established  by  the  apostles;  that  there  was  no  sacred- 
ness  in  the  Sinaitic  seventh  day  which  forbade  trans- 
acting secularities  upon  it,  if  religiously  called  for,  as 
he  says,  the  march  around  Jericho  and  the  sacrifices  in 
the  temple  on  the  Sabbath   fully   testify.*^     His  aim 

1  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  ivii.  pp.  163,  166. 

2lbid.,  Vol.  XX.  p.  368. 

3  Works,  Manich.  Heresy,  pp.  321,  323. 

*  Hessey  on  Sunday,  pp.  71,  79. 

5  Epiphanius,  Adv.  Haer.,  xxx,  Opera,  Tom.  i.  pp.  158,  1«9. 


THE  SABBA  TH  IN  THE  NEW  DISPENSA TION        249 

was  to  justify  observing  the  Lord's  day  and  not  observ- 
ing the  seventh  day.  Cyril  had  the  same  object/ 
Even  Dr.  Hessey  admits  that  it  was  the  Sabbath  as  an 
"  observance  '*  which  Cyril  pronounced  abolished.  His 
debate  was  with  the  Judaizing  Christians.  He  at- 
tempted to  show  that  their  demands  that  believers 
should  observe  the  seventh  day  were  unjustifiable. 
Neither  of  them  pronounced  a  tenth  part  of  the  deca- 
logue obsolete.  Dr.  Hessey  does  not  claim  that  they 
did.  Reply  Third:  Whatever  these  fathers  may 
have  said,  they  lived,  one  of  them  nearly  two  hundred 
and  the  other  nearly  two  hundred  and  fifty  years 
subsequent  to  Irenaeus,  bishop  of  Lyons,  A.  d. 
178,  who,  removed  only  three  fourths  of  a  cen- 
tury from  the  apostle  John,  declared  that  the  ''  words 
of  the  decalogue  "  by  the  advent  of  Christ  received 
"  extension  and  increase,  but  not  abrogation." 

Objection  Second:  Theodoret.  bishop  of  Cyrus,  A. 
D.  420  or  423,  says,  '"The  Sabbath  was  not  an  institu- 
tion of  nature  but  a  matter  of  positive  precept. "  ^ 
Reply:  He,  too,  is  speaking  of  the  positive  Jewish 
Sabbath,  ^  the  observance  of  which  some  men  of  his 
time  would  impose  upon  all  Christians.  We  do  not 
find  that  he  denied  that  there  were  moral  elements  in 
the  Sabbath  of  the  decalogue.  We  do  not  hear  him 
say  that  Christ  abolished  such  moral  elements.  If  we 
did  hear  it,  we  hear  the  wise  Irenaeus  saying  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years  earlier  than  Theodoret,  that 
Jesus  Christ  "has  increased  and  widened  those  laws 
which   are  natural,  and  noble,  and  common  to  all," 

'  Cyril,  in  Esaiam,  Tom.  ii.  Lib.  v.  p.  790. 
2  Hessey  on  Sunday,  p.  80, 
5  TbOQ^.  in  E?ecH,  ohap.  xx, 


250  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

that  the  "words  of  the  decalogue  .  .  .  remain 
permanently. "  Victorinus  speaks  of  a  Sabbath  which 
Christ  in  "  his  body  abolished."  *  But  examination 
shows  that  he  has  in  mind  only  the  Jewish  seventh 
day  in  the  time  of  the  new  dispensation. 

(6)  The  fathers  recognized  a  perpetuity  in  the  or- 
iginal holy  Sabbath,  and  in  the  Lord's  day  a  sacred- 
ness  which  by  its  nature  must  also  be  perpetual ;  and 
we  may,  therefore,  so  far  as  they  are  authority,  iden- 
tify elements  of  the  former  day  in  those  of  the  latter. 
Justin  Martyr  speaks  of  the  "perpetual  Sabbath."  ^ 
There  were,  then,  sabbatic  elements  which  would  not 
be  abolished.  The  spirit  of  holiness  taught  by  one 
holy  day  in  the  week  should  be  made  to  pervade  all 
days.  But  Justin  did  not  mean  that  there  is  now  no 
special  weekly  religious  day,  for  he  has  taught  us 
more  of  it  and  its  services  than  any  other  patristic 
writer.  The  elements  of  the  "perpetual  Sabbath" 
were  especially  embodied  in  the  "Sunday"  which  he 
describes.  Tertullian  tells  us  of  a  Sabbath  "  temporal " 
and  of  one  "eternal."  The  former  is  "of  the  seventh 
day, "  ^  of  the  letter,  the  outward,  which  the  Jews 
were  so  careful  to  observe.  Underlying  it  is  the 
spirit  of  the  Sabbath,  and  that  is  "  eternal ."  When 
Tertullian  enjoins  deferring  our  business  on  the  Lord's 
day,  *  he  involves  in  it  somewhat  of  the  eternal  Sab- 
bath. His  conception  of  the  eternal  would  not  allow 
him  to  say  that  the  whole  soul  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment  was   abolished.     Perpetuity  is  embraced 

'  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xviii.  p.  390. 

2  Ibid.,  Vol.  ii.  p.  101. 

3  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xviii.  p.  212, 
*  Ibid.,  Vol.  xi.  p.  199, 


THE  SABBA  TH  IN  THE  NE  W  DISPENSA TION        251 

in  his  idea  of  the  "  Creator's  Sabbaths,  "  '  and  also  the 
idea  of  man's  proper  observance  of  them,  Irenaeus 
wrote  of  the  Sabbaths  as  teaching  the  continual  ser- 
vice of  God.^  Though  the  Jewish  seventh  days  have 
passed  by,  the  real  Sabbath  is  in  some  sense  teaching 
and  therefore  existing  still.  Its  special  outward  man- 
ifestation now  is  in  the  Lord's  day.  There  is  a  Sab- 
bath as  inabrogable  as  the  moral  law.  A  mere  for- 
mal observance  of  the  Lord's  day  does  not  teach  it, 
but  a  spiritual  observance  does.  The  Lord's  day  is  a 
teacher  of  the  true  rest  still.  As  Augustine  says'  it 
prefigures  the  eternal  repose.  '^  The  seventh=day 
Sabbath  was  based,  in  the  fourth  commandment,  on 
the  "  eternal "  Sabbath.  The  Lord's  day,  having  di- 
vine appointment  and  a  like  design  and  obse#ance, 
has  the  same  basis.  But  when  the  fathers  speak  of  a 
localized  sabbatic  institution,  having  "  Sabbath  "  for 
its  usual  name,  it  is  the  seventh^day  Sabbath,  which 
they  regarded  as  "temporal"  and  not  "etermal." 

(7)  The  doctrine  was  set  forth  among  the  early 
fathers  and  their  contemporaries  that  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, or  real  Sabbath,  was  not  abolished,  what- 
ever the  changes,  and  though  the  first  day  was  ob- 
served, and  the  seventh  was  not.  It  is  reputed  that 
the  presbyter  Diodorus  writes  to  BishoiD  Archelaus 
A.  D.  277,  that  one  Manes  in  his  vicinage  is  teaching 
heresy.  He  reports  him  as,  among  other  things,  cit- 
ing the  punishment  under  Moses'  law  for  gathering 
sticks  on  the  Sabbath  as  inconsistent  w^th  Christ's 
healing  a  cripple  and  allowing  his  disciples  to  pluck 

1  Ibid.,  Vol.  vii.  p.  220. 

2  Ibid.,  Vol.  V.  p.  422. 

^  Works,  City  of  God.  book  xxii.  30, 


252  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

ears  of  corn  on  the  Sabbath.  Archelaus  in  replying 
to  Manes  describes  his  error  as  an  "  effort  directed 
to  prove  that  the  law  of  Moses  is  not  consistent  with 
the  law  of  Christ, "  and  says:  "As  to  the  assertion 
that  the  Sabbath  has  been  abolished,  we  deny  that  he 
has  abolished  it  plainly  {plane),  for  he  was  himself 
also  Lord  of  the  Sabbath.  And  this  (the  law's  rela- 
tion to  the  Sabbath)  was  like  the  servant  who  has 
charge  of  the  bridegroom's  couch,  who  prepares 
the  same  with  all  carefulness,  and  does  not  suffer  it 
to  be  disturbed  or  touched  by  any  stranger,  but  keeps 
it  intact  against  the  time  of  the  bridegroom's  arrival, 
so  that  when  he  is  come  the  bed  may  be  used  as  it 
pleases  himself,  or  as  it  is  granted  to  those  to  use  it 
whoi#he  has  bidden  enter  along  with  him."  ^  This 
passage  occurs  tn  the  "  Acts  of  a  Disputation  "  said 
to  have  been  held  by  Archelaus  with  Manes.  Its  au- 
thenticity is  not  positively  traceable  to  Archelaus. 
But  if  not  his,  and  not  dating  in  the  third  century 
Beausobre  is  probably  correct  in  ascribing  these 
"  Acts  "  to  some  Grreek  writer  of  the  fourth  century.  ^ 
And  Neander  no  doubt  correctly  remarks  that  there 
is  in  them  "  much  in  the  representation  of  the  doc- 
trine which  wears  the  appearance  of  truth."  ^  This 
passage  on  the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  commandment 
written  in  the  third  or  fourth  century,  certainly  in- 
dicates a  view  held  thus  early,  and  we  deduce  from  it 
the  following:  (1)  Christ  could  abolish  or  change  the 
Sabbath;  (2)  The  law  kept  the  Sabbath  for  him  till 
he  came,  and  then  he  did  with  it  what  he  would;  (3) 

1  Ant.  Nic.  Lib.,  Vol.  xx.  p.  373. 

2  Smith's  Diet.,  Christ.  Biography,  Archelaus, 
9  gt»urch  Historjr  (ed.  1852),  Vol,  1.  p.  485, 


THE  SA  BBA  TH  IN  THE  NE  W  D  ISP  ENS  A  TION       253 

One  thing  he  did  not  do, — he  did  not  abolish  it;  (4) 
The  Sabbath  therefore  in  some  sense  remains, 
though  Christians  keep  the  first  and  not  the  seventh 
day. 

In  respect  to  this,  as  with  some  other  subjects, 
there  are  distinctions  not  readily  seen,  which  are  yet 
so  important  that  error  will  result  unless  they  are 
perceived.  Luther  failed  to  see  clearly  the  distinc- 
tion between  works  as  a  means  of  self=righteousness 
and  works  as  a  necessary  fruit  of  justifying  faith, 
and  hence  he  questioned  the  genuineness  of  the 
Epistle  of  James.  Some  modern  writers  do  not  dis- 
tinguish clearly  between  a  system  of  law — moral,  typ- 
ical, and  ceremonial — as  the  way  and  means  of  ac- 
ceptance with  God,  and  law — moral  merely — as  the 
expression  of  the  divine  pleasure  under  a  system  of 
grace,  and  hence  do  not  perceive  that  law  in  the 
latter  sense  is  never  repealed.  And  some,  failing  to 
bear  in  mind  the  difference  between  the  merely  pos- 
itive Judaic  Sabbath  and  the  moral^positive  Sinaitic 
or  Adamic  institution,  and  seeing  evidence  in  Script- 
ure and  the  patristic  writings  of  the  abrogation  of  the 
former,  erroneously  conclude  that  both  are  abrogated, 
and  that  therefore  the  fourth  commandment  is  en- 
tirely obsolete.  This  last  error  has  done  much  to 
break  down  the  divine  order  of  sacred  time. 

Augustine  distinctly  teaches  that  the  fourth  com- 
mandment is  not  abolished.  He  says,  *' '  Observe  the 
Sabbath  day '  is  enjoined  on  us  more  than  on  them, 
because  it  is  commanded  to  be  spiritually  observed. 
For  the  Jews  observe  the  Sabbath  in  a  servile  manner, 
using  it  for  luxuriousness  and  drunkenness.  How 
much  better  would  their  women  be  employed  in  spin- 


254  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

ning  wool  than  in  dancing  on  that  day  in  the  balco- 
nies? God  forbid,  brethren,  that  we  should  call  that 
an  observance  of  the  Sabbath.  The  Christian  ob- 
serves the  Sabbath  spiritually,  abstaining  from  servile 
work.  For  what  is  it  to  abstain  from  servile  work? 
From  sin.  And  how  prove  we  it?  Ask  the  Lord: 
'  Whosoever  committeth  sin  is  the  servant  of  sin.' 
Therefore  is  the  spiritual  observance  of  the  Sabbath 
enjoined  upon  us.  Now  all  those  commandments 
are  more  enjoined  on  us,  and  are  to  be  observed: 
'  Thou  shalt  not  kill.  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adul- 
tery,' "  etc.^  It  was  merely  the  outward  observance  of 
the  seventh  day  that  Augustine  considered  annulled, 
not  its  spiritual  teaching  or  moral  elements.  We 
need  not  be  circumscribed  or  limited  by  his  philoso- 
phy as  to  the  observance  of  the  fourth  commandment. 
Our  one  point  now  is,  he  did  not  deem  it  abolished, 
but  still  in  force,  with  the  single  exception  of  out- 
wardly keeping  the  seventh  day.  He  makes  no  allu- 
sion to  any  contrary  opinion  among  the  early  fathers 
or  Christians.  The  language  of  the  other  fathers  is 
entirely  consistent  with  his  view.  It  follows,  there- 
fore, that  Drs.  Hessey,  HoiDkins,  F.  W.  Robertson, 
and  many  others,  who  have  inferred  the  abrogation 
of  the  fourth  commandment  from  the  patristic  writ- 
ings, have  made  a  wrong  deduction  in  respect  to  that 
vital  question. 

Calvin  held  the  same  view  that  Augustine  did,  and 
perhaps  derived  it  from  him.  He  says,  "  Besides, 
the  Sabbath,  although  its  external  observation  is  not 
now  in  use,  still  remains  eternal  in  its  reality,  like 

'  "Lectures  or  Tractates  on  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  John," 
Vol.  i.  p.  39;  Tractate,  iii.  sec.  19  (Edinburgh  ed.  1873). 


THE  SABBA  TH  IN  THE  NE  W  DISPENSA  TION        255 

circumcision.  .  .  .  They  (the  Jews)  calumniate 
us  falsely,  as  if  we  disregarded  the  Sabbath;  because 
there  is  nothing  which  more  comple  tely  confirms  its 
reality  and  substance  than  the  abolition  of  its  exter- 
nal use."  ^  It  is  plain  from  this  that  Calvin  would  by 
no  means  countenance  the  idea  that  the  fourth  com- 
mandment is  abolished.  Let  it  not  be  claimed  that 
Calvin  held  what  Dr.  Hessey  says  the  fathers  taught, 
that  the  Lord's  day  is  a  "  Christian  ordinance,  quite 
distinct  from  the  Sabbath."^  For  Calvin  teaches 
that  the  Sabbath  was  instituted  at  the  creation,  and 
thus  has  some  obligation  for  all  men;  that  it  has  a 
moral  nature,  since  it  belongs  to  the  decalogue,  which 
he  denominates  the  "moral  law";  that  the  fourth 
commandment  binds  men  in  "  every  age  "  to  religious 
services  on  stated  days,  and  to  rest  from  labor;  that 
the  early  Christians  properly  "  substituted  what  we 
call  the  Lord's  day  for  the  Sabbath,"  and  that  we 
should  follow  that  order.^  He  also  held  that  the  spe- 
cific seventh^  day  Sabbath  had  a  typical  or  ceremonial 
character,  which  shadowed  forth  spiritual  rest,  and 
that  in  that  respect  it  was  abolished  with  the  other 
types.  Yet  in  that  abrogation  the  fourth  command- 
ment as  a  whole  was  not  abolished.  His  co4aborer8 
in  the  Reformation  generally  agreed  with  him. 
Luther  says,  "  I  believe  that  the  apostles  transferred 
the  Sabbath  to  Sunday,  otherwise  no  man  would 
have  been  so  audacious  as  to  dare  to  do  it."  ^ 

^  On  Fourth  Commandment  Ex.  xxxi.  13;  Harmony  of  Pente- 
teuch  (Edinburgh  ed.  1853),  Vol.  ii.  p.  444. 

2  Sunday,  p.  46. 

3  Institutes,  book  ii.  chap.  viii. 

^Tischreden,  Luther's  Works  (Erlangen  ed.  60),  p.  388;  Pres. 
Valentine,  D.  I).  "Is  the  Lord's  day  only  a  human  ordinance?" 
p.  27. 


256  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

(8)    It  was    taught   among  the   fathers   that   the 
Lord's  day  under  the  new  covenant  actually  took  the 
place,    in    substance,    of    the   seventh =day   Sabbath 
under  the   old   covenant.     When  Tertullian  teaches 
that  the   observance   of  the  seventh  day  was  to  be 
temporary,  and  that  business  and  labor  ought  to  be 
suspended  on  the  Lord's  day;  when  Athanasius  says 
we   ought  to  honor  the  Lord's  day   even   as   it  was 
commanded  to   keep   the  Sabbath;  when  Augustine 
speaks  of  both  the  Sabbath  and  the  Lord's  day  as 
figures  of  the  heavenly  rest,  they  all  plainly  regard 
the  Lord's  day  as  legitimately  occupying  the  place  of 
the   Sinaitic   Sabbath.     But   Eusebius,   of    eminent 
learning,  who  must  have  known  the  testimony  and 
practice  of  the  two  preceding  centuries,  is  fullest  on 
this  point.     In  his  commentary  on  the  ninety^second 
psalm,   entitled  "A  Psalm  or  Song  for  the  Sabbath 
Day,"    he   says.   "Wherefore   as    they    [the    Jews] 
rejected    it    [the    sabbatic    command]  ,  the    Word 
[Christ]  by  the  new  covenant  translated  and  trans- 
ferred the  feast  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  morning  light, 
and  gave  us  the  symbol  of  true  rest,  viz.  the  saving 
Lord's  day,  the  first  [day]  of  the  light,  in  which  the 
Saviour  of  the  world,  after  all  his  labors  among  men, 
obtained  the  victory  over  death,  and  passed  the  por- 
tals of  heaven,  having  achieved  a  work  superior  to 
the  six  days'  creation     .     .     .     On  this  day,  which  is 
the  first  day  of  light  and  of  the  true  sun,  we  assemble 
after  an  interval  of  six  days,  and  celebrate  holy  and 
spiritual  Sabbaths,  even  all  nations  redeemed  by  him 
throughout   the   world,   and  do  those  things  accord- 
ing to  the  spiritual  law  which  were  decreed  for  the 
priests  to  do  on  the  Sabbath;  for  we  make  spiritual 


THE  SA  BBA  TH  IN  THE  NE  W  DISPENSA  TION        257 

offerings  and  sacrifices,  which  are  called  sacrifices  of 
praise  and  rejoicing;  we  make  incense  of  a  good 
odor  to  ascend,  as  it  is  written,  'Let  my  jorayer  come 
up  before  thee  as  incense,'  .  .  .  and  all  things, 
whatsoever  that  it  was  duty  to  do  on  the  Sabbath, 
these  we  have  transferred  to  the  Lord's  day  as  more 
appropriately  belonging  to  it,  because  it  has  a  prece- 
dence, and  is  first  in  rank  and  more  honorable  than 
the  Jewish  Sabbath;  wherefore  it  is  delivered  to  us 
that  we  should  meet  together  on  this  day,  and  it  is 
ordered  that  we  should  do  those  things  announced  in 
this  psalm."  '  Eusebius  here  teaches,  (1)  That 
Christ  or  his  apostles  translated  and  transferred  the 
feast  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  Lord's  day;  (2)  That  the 
early  Christians  on  the  Lord's  days  celebrated  holy 
and  spiritual  Sabbaths,  such  as  were  enjoyed  under 
the  old  dispensation;  (3)  That  they  on  that  day  pre- 
sented unto  God  spiritual  oflPerings  and  sacrifices  in 
place  of  the  ceremonial  ones  required  of  priests  and 
people  under  the  Jewish  law;  (4)  That  they  trans- 
ferred to  the  Lord's  day  all  the  duties,  in  substance, 
which  formerly  belonged  to  the  seventh-day  Sab- 
bath; (5)  That  they  were  divinely  directed  to  make 
this  change  of  duties  and  services  from  the  seventh 
to  the  first  day  of  the  week.  He  must  have  held  that 
the  Lord's  day  contained  the  chief  sabbatic  elements. 
Objection:  Dr.  Hessey  says  on  this  commentary, 
"  Such  is  the  passage  in  Eusebius  of  which  so  much 
has  been  recently  made,  as  if  it  identified  the  Sab- 
bath and  the  Lord's  day.  It  really  does  nothing  of 
the  kind,  but  is  only  a  strong  instance  of  that  resort 

>  Patrologiae   Graecae,  Tom.  xxiii.   pp.   1170,   1171;   Stuart's 
Translation  in  Gurney  on  the  Sabbath.     Appendix  B. 
16 


258  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

to  the  analogy  of  the  Jewish  law."^  Reply:  We  do 
not  claim  that  it  "  identifies  "  the  two  days,  but  in 
substance  identifies  the  moral  elements  of  the  two 
days;  that  it  teaches  that  the  Lord's  day  under  the 
new  covenant  takes  in  substance  the  place  of  the  sev- 
enth day  under  the  old  covenant,  it  is  the  Christian 
Snbbath,  and  in  respect  to  moral  elements  has  the 
authority  of  the  fourth  commandment. 

(9)  It  seems  that  the  idea  and  even  the  name 
"  Sabbath  "  was  applied  by  one  of  the  fathers  to  the 
Lord's  day,  near  the  close  of  the  second  century, 
about  one  hundred  years  after  the  last  of  the  apostles. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  widely  known  and  highly  in- 
fluential in  his  tiniQ,  commenting  on  the  fourth  com- 
mandment says,  "  The  seventh  day,  therefore,  is 
proclaimed  a  rest, —  abstraction  from  ills, —  preparing 
for  the  primal  day,  our  true  rest;  which,  in  truth,  is 
the  first  creation  of  light,  in  which  all  things  are 
viewed  and  possessed  .  .  .  The  discourse  has 
turned  on  the  seventh  and  the  eighth.  For  the 
eighth  may  possibly  turn  out  to  be  properly  the 
seventh,  and  the  seventh  manifestly  the  sixth,  and 
the  latter  [  the  eighth  ]  properly  the  Sabbath,  and 
the  seventh  a  day  of  work."^  Among  Clement's 
thoughts  are  these:  (1)  There  is  a  near  relation 
and  clear  similarity  between  the  seventh  day  and  the 
first,  or  "eighth";  (2)  The  first  day  of  the  week  is 
analogous  to  the  first  of  creation;  (3)  In  the  new 
dispensation  the  seventh  day  in  a  sense  becomes  the 
sixth,  "a  day  of  work,"  and  the  eighth  bceomes  the 
seventh,  a  day  of  "rest"  ;  (4)  The  first  or  "eighth  " 
day  has  sabbatic  endowments,  might  "properly"  be 

^Sunday,  notes,  p.  301. 


THE  SABBA  TH  IN  THE  NE  W  DJSPENSA  TION        25d 

termed  the  "  Sabbath,"  and  "  possibly"  will  yet  be  so 
named.  Such  thoughts,  being  in  Clement's  mind, 
and  writings,  were  certainly  entertained  in  that  early 
age  by  others.  The  primitive  Christians,  having 
certainly  perceived  the  likeness  between  the  seventh 
and  Lord's  day,  must  have  also  seen  that  the  name  of 
the  former — Sabbath — would  in  many  respects  be 
suitable  as  a  name  of  the  latter,  except  that  it  already 
had  a  better  one,  in  their  conception.  Objection:  "It 
is  not  certain  that  Clement  refers  directly  to  the 
eighth  day.  The  word  for  day  does  not  appear  in 
the  original."  Reply:  The  word  "  day,"  —  "seventh 
day,"  —  had  been  previously  used  in  the  same  sec- 
tion; the  passage  is  distinctly  on  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, and  therefore  "day"  may  well  be  sup- 
posed to  be  understood,  especially  as  Clement  speaks 
of  the  "seventh  "as  a  "working,"  —  day  for  work. 
Objection  Second:  "The  meaning  may  be  that 
under  the  gospel  dispensation  the  Christian  has  a 
true  rest,  or  Sabbath."  Reply:  Clement  is  speaking 
of  particular  numbers,  —  seventh  and  eighth,  —  and 
not  expressly  of  dispensations  or  of  Christian  p)rivi- 
leges.  Those  numliers  have  no  significance  here 
unless  they  refer  to  days,  nor  the  days  any  signifi- 
cance unless  the  writer  has  the  conception  that  the 
"eighth"  or  first  day  of  the  week  is  in  substance  a 
"  Sabbath,"  and  might  yet  be  called,  or  even  proved 
to  be,  such.  Objection  Third:  "The  use  of  the  pas- 
sage to  support  an  authoritative  transfer  of  the 
ancient  Sabbath  to  the  Lord's  day  is  hazardous." 
Reply:  It  is  not  proposed  to  use  it  for  an  "authori- 
tative transfer,"  but  to  show  that  the  early  fathers 
recognized  sabbatic  elements  in  the  Lord's  day,  and 


260  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

were  very  far  from  saying  that  the  fourth  command- 
ment was  void  because  the  seventh=day  observance 
was  no  longer  binding.  We  have  aimed  to  show 
that  the  fathers'  testimony  does  not  forbid  finding  a 
basis  for  the  Lord's  day  in  the  fourth  commandment. 
We  claim  to  have  shown  that  Scripture  does  not  for- 
bid it.  Therefore  the  fourth  commandment  asserts 
its  own  demand,  subject  only  to  such  modification  as 
the  New  Testament  gives.  There  we  find  an  abso- 
lute release  from  the  observance  of  the  seventh  day 
(Col.  ii.  16),  and  in  its  place  the  privilege  and  obli- 
gation to  observe  the  Lord's  day.  The  appeal  to 
patristical  lore  is  to  interpret  and  confirm  the  New 
Testament  instruction.  In  the  writings  of  the 
fathers  we  find  ample  proof  that  the  Lord's  day  in 
that  age  was  kept  "holy,"  though  not  according  to 
all  Judaic  sabbatic  rules.  The  commandment  itself 
has  not  varied  its  demand  for  holiness.  Clement's 
reflections  above  given  show  that  in  his  mind  was 
doubtless  the  same  thought  that  naturally  has  come 
to  many  other  minds  in  the  centuries  past,  and  comes 
to  many  still, —  the  Lord's  day  does  in  substance 
take  the  place  of  the  seventh  day  in  the  fourth  of 
the  Sinaitic  commandments 

But  why  is  there  so  great  importance  in  finding  a 
basis  for  Sabbath  observance  in  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, and  in  holding  tenaciously  to  that  basis? 
Because,  (1)  If  such  is  God's  revealed  will  it  is 
transgression  and  peril  to  disregard  it.  (2)  It  gives 
the  most  consistent  and  beautiful  array  of  divine 
truth.  On  any  other  theory  the  fourth  command- 
ment stands  mutilated  in  the  most  wonderful  body 
of  laws  that   ever   existed   among  men.     That  com- 


THE  SABBA  TH  IN  THE  NE  W  DISPENSA  TION        26 1 

mandment  made  whole  accords  with  the  fact  that  a 
day  of  rest  was  set  apart  and  hallowed  from  the  close 
of  creation,  and  with  the  evidence  that  such  a  day 
was  given  for  the  observance  of  mankind  previous  to 
the  existence  of  the  Jewish  nation.  The  divine 
common  law,  or  law  of  precedent,  in  which  the  ante- 
Mosaic  Sabbath  was  based,  might  be  expected  to 
receive  expression  in  some  divine  statute  like  that  of 
the  decalogue,  and  that  statute  might  be  expected  to 
continue.  By  divine  common  law,  in  distinction 
from  divine  statute,  the  Lord,s  day,  or  Christian 
Sabbath,  has  its  authority  in  the  new  dispensation. 
This  doctrine  of  the  continuity  of  sacred  time  from 
the  beginning,  based  in  both  the  divine  law  of  prece- 
dent and  the  decalogue,  accords  best  with  the  impor- 
tance of  the  Sabbath  and  the  welfare  of  men.  (3) 
We  may  know  a  priori  that  human  nature  needs  to 
anchor  to  the  firm  foundation  of  God's  command- 
ments. (4)  History  tells  us  that  whercA^er  the  doc- 
trine of  the  abrogation  of  the  fourth  commandment 
has  found  sway,  there  Sabbath  desecration  has  been 
the  sure  result.  The  Jews  ever  disregarded  and  de- 
spised the  Sabbath  unless  confronted  with  the  divine 
sabbatic  requirements.  Many  who  condemned  the 
principles  of  the  Puritan  Sabbath  acknowledged  its 
conservative  and  healthful  influence.  Many  noted 
men  who  have  advocated  the  theories  of  the  Euro- 
pean continental  Sabbath  have  mourned  over  their 
evil  fruits,  and  have  in  the  comparison  admired  and 
desired  the  purer  American  Sabbath  when  free  from 
foreign  embarrassments  and  corruptions.  Man  left 
to  his  own  free  will,  without  the  divine  will,  is  sure 
to  go  astray.    Therefore  we  should  enthrone  forever 


262  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

the  whole  moral  law.  the  moral  elements  of  the  fourth 
commandment  with  all  the  rest.  We  must  choose 
whether  to  regard  them  as  void  or  binding.  Who, 
with  fair  and  full  consideration,  can  accept  the  for- 
mer alternative? 

NOTES. 

1.  It  should  be  noticed  that  the  modern  general 
view  of  the  Sabbath  is  well  supported  by  that  emi- 
nent theologian  and  reasoner  Jonathan  Edwards,  of 
more  than  a  century  and  a  half  ago.  He  held  that 
the  Sabbath  was  instituted  at  the  close  of  creation  as 
a  personal  blessing  to  man,  and  is  therefore  binding 
upon  him  now  as  it  has  been  in  all  ages  past  where- 
ever  known.  He  held  also  that  the  Sabbath  is  one 
day  in  seven  and  that  under  the  gospel  dispensation 
this  day  is  the  first  day  of  the  week  and  that  the 
Christian  Sabbath  in  the  sense  of  the  fourth  com- 
mand is  as  much  the  seventh  as  the  Jewish  Sabbath, 
because  it  is  kept  after  six  days  of  labor  as  well  as  that. 
Its  observance  honors  God  as  the  keeping  of  His 
command,  and  should  be  kept  free  from  worldly  con- 
cerns that  it  may  be  devoted  to  religious  exercises. 

2.  The  discussion  of  this  subject  shows  that  the 
Christian  Sabbath,  or  the  sacred  observance  of  one 
day  in  seven,  is  not  a  merely  Jewish  Institution.  It 
was  not  only  ante=^Sinaitic,  but  ante^Mosaic,  dating 
at  the  close  of  creation:  it  has  a  moral  principle, 
therefore  that  principle  is  a  law  founded  on  the 
nature  and  needs  of  man  and  irrepealable.  Its  repe- 
tition at  Sinai  was  simply  its  engrossment;  a  few  out- 
ward observances  were  merely  adaptations  to  Jewish 
ceremonial   and   civil  laws  subsequently  repealed;  a 


THE  SABBA TH  IN  THE  NEW  DISPENSATION        263 

change  of  time  was  a  later  adaptation  to  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation  which  must  stand  while  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation  remains. 

3.  When  Christ  told  his  hearers  that  the  Sabbath 
was  made  for  man  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath,  his 
chief  motive  was  to  rebuke  Judaic  superstitions. 
But  the  truth  he  cited  concerning  the  Sabbath  was 
no  less  a  truth  because  brought  forward  incidentally 
and  not  as  the  primary  object.  The  Sabbath  is  of  such 
a  nature  as  to  be  applicable  to  all  men  and  not  to 
Jews  merely.  The  distinction  between  the  secular 
and  the  spiritual  is  adapted  to  all  classes  of  men  and 
lasts  while  life  lasts.  Therefore  it  should  be  observ- 
ed by  all  men :  neither  Christ  n(;r  his  apostles  said 
any  thing  contrary  to  this. 

4.  Let  it  never  be  forgotten  that  apostolic  unity 
in  doctrine  and  in  practice  constitute  divine  instruc- 
tion and  authority.  Let  it  be  also  remembered 
that  the  earliest  Christians  were  taught  by  Christ 
and  his  apostles  and  that  the  Early  Fathers,  some  of 
them  contemporory  with  the  apostles,  are  agreed  in 
holding  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  sacred.  In  act- 
ual history  there  is  no  division  of  testimony. 

5.  Let  those  who  speak  lightly  of  the  Puritan 
Sabbath  remember  that  imperfect  though  it  may 
have  been,  it  was  a  magnificent  protest  against  great 
worldliness  in  the  church  at  that  time  and  served  a 
grand  purpose.  Much  of  its  spirit  might  well  be 
retained. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  ADVANTAGES   OF   THE  SABBATH   FOR   MAN'S  PHYSI- 
CAL BEING. 

When  the  Savior  said,  "  The  Sabbath  was  made 
for  man  "  (Mark  ii:  27),  he  announced  a  fundamental 
and  most  valuable  divine  law  for  human  welfare.  The 
human  body  of  necessity  occupies  a  large  place  in 
man's  attention  and  wants.  The  efficiency  of  that 
body  is  very  wide  and  serviceable  when  it  is  pos- 
sessed and  governed  by  a  right  mind.  There  must 
be  then,  a  great  importance  in  due  attention  to  the  real 
wants  of  the  physical  nature  in  this  life.  How  many 
sick  beds  and  how  many  faint  and  drooping  forms 
demonstrate,  that  there  has  been  a  lack  of  appliance 
for  the  health  of  the  body;  and  also,  that  there 
should  be  strict  vigilance  with  all  the  healthy  and 
robust,  to  preserve  the  physical  force  and  strength 
which  they  already  possess.  One  law  of  demand  for 
the  human  system  is  that  of  rest.  Laws  for  rest 
are  stationed  all  along  the  physical  nature.  The 
lungs  rest  after  each  breath  we  take;  the  blood-ves- 
sels rest  between  the  heart=beatings;  the  nerves  and 
brain  will  have  rest  and  will  revenge  themselves 
upon  us  if  we  cut  short  the  supply. 

The  ordaining  of  day  and  night  to  follow  each 
other    in    quick   succession    through  sill   ages    of 

26i 


THE  SABBA  TH  FOR  PH  YSICAL  BEING  265 

the  world,  was  a  merciful  appointment  of  God. 
— Without  it  the  human  species  would  probably 
have  become  extinct  at  a  very  early  period  of  time. 
The  night  is  needful  to  refresh  and  invigorate  our 
weak  bodies,  that  can  endure  but  a  few  hours  of  toil 
without  sleep.  If  rest  be  not  willingly  given,  the 
body  will  take  it  against  will.  The  person  long  wear- 
ied by  sorrow,  in  spite  of  himself  will  fall  asleep, 
if  he  persists  in  denying  the  demand  for  rest.  So 
was  it  apparently  with  the  three  disciples  whom 
Christ  asked  to  watch  with  him  in  the  garden  of  his 
agony.  So  is  it  often  with  criminals  the  very  night 
preceding  their  execution.  They  have  been  known 
to  sleep  soundly  for  nine  successive  hours  the  last 
night  of  their  earthly  existence.  Bonaparte  once 
passed  three  entire  days  and  nights  without  sleep; 
but  he  could  no  longer  contend  against  this  law  of 
rest,  and  sank  to  sleep  on  his  horse.  As  surely  as 
there  is  a  God,  one  of  his  laws  in  our  physical  being 
is  that  which  calls  for  rest. 

But,  experience  and  observation  have  shown,  that 
the  rest  of  night,  and  all  forms  of  daily  and  nightly 
rest  put  together,  are  insufficient  for  the  highest  good 
of  man's  physical  being.  There  must  be  days  as 
well  as  nights  of  rest.  The  steady  routine  of  day  and 
night,  without  breaks  and  openings  in  its  course,  is 
inimical  to  man's  highest  state  of  health  and  physi- 
cal efficiency.  Dr.  Carpenter,  the  distinguished  Eng- 
lish physician,  physiologist,  and  author,  says  it  has 
been  found  by  those  who  employ  horses  in  coaching, 
that  in  traveling  a  certain  distance,  it  is  better  to 
work  a  horse  four  days,  and  give  him  a  fifth  day  for 
rest,  than   to  divide  the  same  distance  into  five  parts 


266  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

for  five  days,  and  give  him  no  one  day  of  rest.  Mr. 
Bionconi,  to  whom  Ireland  is  much  indebted  for 
"establishing  and  maintaining  its  system  of  public 
cars,"  at  a  meeting  of  the  British  Association  for  the 
advancement  of  science,  in  Dublin,  in  1857,  said,  "  I 
found  that  I  could  work  a  horse  with  more  advantage 
eight  miles  a  day  for  six  days,  than  six  miles  a  day 
for  seven  days;  and  therefore  I  discovered  that  by  not 
working  on  Sunday  I  made  a  saving  of  twelve  per 
cent. "  ^  Intervals,  changes,  that  shall  give  variations 
to  the  course,  are  demanded  by  the  physical  nature. 

But  some  regularity  in  the  intervals  is  important. 
A  term  of  twenty  days  for  work,  and  then  of  four 
days  for  rest,  will  not  suffice  like  the  four  for  work 
and  one  for  rest  in  regular  order.  It  is  found  that 
the  physical  nature  looses  its  vigor  by  a  long  suc- 
cession of  working  days  without  intervening  rest 
days;  that  the  tone  of  vigor  grows  less  and  less  as 
by  a  regular  falling  scale.  Numerous  experiments 
have  demonstrated  this. 

Whether  the  physical  being  shows  that  the  day  of 
interval  and  rest  should  be  every  seventh  may  not  be 
so  clear.  But  the  law  of  God,  copied  from  his  law  of 
creation,  has  revealed  to  us  that  the  seventh, day  for 
interval  and  for  rest  is  for  the  best,  and  destruction 
would  doubtless  come  if  any  other  ordinal  than  the 
seventh  were  taken.  The  distinguished  Jonathan 
Edwards  held  that  there  was  probably  some  Divine 
law  in  human  being,  which  demands  the  seventh 
rather  than  any  other  ordinal  day  for  rest,  though 
the  reason  of  it  is  as  yet  unknown  to  us.  The  once 
infidel  France  tried   the  tenth  day  in   place  of  the 

^  Kev.  Joseph  Cook,  Sabbath  Essays,  p.  40. 


THE  SABBATH  FOR  PHYSICAL  BEING  267 

seventh,  and  that  was  doubtless  one  of  the  evil  ele- 
ments that  plunged  the  nation  into  anarchy  and 
blood.  The  long  centuries  have  given  numerous 
opportunities  for  experiment  in  this  matter.  The 
conclusion  of  all  candid  and  well-informed  minds 
put  to  this  question  has  been,  that  a  seventh  day  for 
rest  is  needful  for  man's  physical  being.  The  com- 
munities where  this  law  is  observed  are  healthier, 
stronger,  more  temperate,  of  greater  longevity.  The 
better  soldiers  in  physical  capacity  during  the  late 
American  war,  did  not  come  from  the  Sabbath^ 
breaking  communities,  but  from  those  in  general 
where  God's  law  of  weekly  rest  had  been  observed. 
When  the  great  "  New  West "  was  almost  unknown, 
and  emigrants  from  the  East  went  in  caravans  from 
the  Mississippi  across  the  Rocky  mountains  to  Cali- 
fornia, it  was  repeatedly  demonstrated  by  experiment, 
that  the  companies  of  travelers  that  stopped  their 
teams  on  prairies  or  hillsides,  and  gave  to  them,  and 
took  for  themselves,  the  Lord's  day  rest,  reached 
their  journey's  end  the  soonest  and  safest.  Years 
ago,  when  the  Crystal  Palace  exhibition  was  at  its 
height,  six  hundred  and  forty  one  physicians  of  Lon- 
don subscribed  a  petition  to  the  British  Parliament 
against  opening  that  Palace  for  profit  on  Sundays, 
and  in  the  petition  they  said,  "Your  petitioners, 
from  their  acquaintance  with  the  laboring  classes 
and  with  the  laws  which  regulate  the  human  econ- 
omy, are  convinced  that  a  seventh  day  of  rest,  in- 
stituted by  God,  and  coeval  with  the  existence  of 
man  is  essential  to  the  bodily  health  and  mental 
vigor  of  men  in  every  station  of  life."  The  British 
House  of  Commons  many  years  since  made  an  in- 


268  ^  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

vestigation  of  the  effects  of  laboring  seven  days  in 
the  week  compared  with  laboring  six  and  resting  one. 
Among  the  many  witnesses  they  summoned,  was  Dr. 
Fane  of  London,  who  had  been  in  the  early  part  of 
his  life  the  physician  of  a  public  medical  institu- 
tion and  had  been  engaged  in  the  study  and  prac- 
tice of  medicine  forty  years.  He  gave  a  lengthy  and 
important  testimony,  showing  that  one  day  in  seven 
is  greatly  needed  as  a  day  of  rest  to  restore  to  the 
body  and  mind,  that  energy  and  vigor  and  strength 
which  they  lose  by  six  days  of  laborious  application. 
He  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  night  was  not  a 
sufficient  restorative  power  to  secure  the  attainment 
of  long  life.  He  considered  the  Sabbath  not  only 
a  positive  institution  which  should  be  observed  be- 
cause the  Divine  Will  demands  it,  but  that  it  should 
also  be  kept  as  a  natural  duty  to  preserve  life; 
that  he  who  habitually  violates  it  by  labor  is  virtu- 
ally guilty  of  suicide.  He  regarded  the  Sabbath  as 
a  great  "  sustaining,  repairing  and  healing  power. " 
A  committee  in  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature,  in 
their  report  in  regard  to  the  employment  of  laborers 
on  their  state  canals  on  the  Sabbath,  asserted  it  as 
the  result  of  their  own  experience,  that  man  and 
beast  will  perform  more  labor  by  resting  one  day  in 
seven  than  by  working  the  whole  seven.  Years  ago 
the  Minister  of  Marine  in  France  ordered  that  no 
workmen  be  employed  in  the  government  dock-yards 
on  the  Sabbath,  on  the  ground  that  more  labor  will 
be  performed  by  resting  on  the  Sabbath  than  by 
working  seven  days  in  the  week. 

During  some  years  past  there  has  been  a  somewhat 
poj)ular  call  for  more  holidays.     Without  now  judg- 


THE  SABBATH  FOR  PHYSICAL  BEING  269 

ing  whether  there  should  be  more  or  not,  one  thing 
is  certain,  there  ought  to  be  more  holy  days  and  even 
a  well-kept  and  universally  kept  Sabbath.  The  more 
holidays  some  people  have,  the  worse  they  are  off.  A 
laboring  man  of  New  York  city  who  had  freely  pat- 
ronized Sabbath  excursions  under  the  plea  for  more 
recreation,  recently  abandoned  them,  saying,  that  he 
found  himself  by  them  made  more  weary  and  unfit 
for  his  week's  work  then  to  come,  than  he  was  on 
Saturday  night.  Jorgensen  says,  "  The  moroseness 
occasioned  by  the  want  of  a  Sabbath  in  France  has 
an  effect  on  the  cleanliness  of  young  men  engaged  in 
manual  labor;  they  pursue  their  daily  drudgery  in 
their  dirty  working  dresses,  and  habit  renders  them 
at  length  averse  to  a  change  of  linen  and  clothes." 
Cleanliness  is  one  protection  against  disease.  It  is 
found  that  suicides  occur  more  in  Sabbath  breaking 
than  in  Sabbath  keeping  countries,  and  far  more 
among  Sabbath  breakers  than  among  Sabbath  keep- 
ers." Coleridge  says,  I  feel  as  if  God  had,  by  giving 
the  Sabbath,  given  fifty  two  Springs  in  the  year." 
All  laboring  men  who  are  dependent  on  others  for 
employment,  have  a  direct  and  important  interest  in 
maintaining  the  Sabbath.  No  Sabbath  means  for 
many  of  them  eventually  more  labor  with  no  more 
pay.  John  Stuart  Mill  said,  "  Operatives  are  per- 
fectly right  in  thinking  that  if  all  worked  on  Sunday, 
seven  days'  work  would  be  given  for  six  days'  wages."  ^ 
It  is  seen  that  there  must  be  a  well^observed  law  of 
rest  for  all,  or  there  will  be  no  liberty  of  rest  for  those 
who  wish  it.  Sir  David  Wilkie,  a  celebrated  painter, 
said, "  Those  artists  who  wrought  on  Sunday  were 
^  Sabbath  Essays  p.  42. 


270  '    •    SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

soon  disqualified  from  working  at  all."  Professor 
Ernest  Curtius,  a  distinguished  philologist  and  an- 
tiquary of  Germany,  says,  "  The  alternation  of  work- 
ing and  resting  days  appeared,  even  to  the  ancients, 
as  something  so  primeval  in  its  origin,  so  indispen- 
sible,  and  so  closely  connected  with  religion,  that 
they  perceived  in  it,  not  an  innovation  of  human 
cleverness,  but  a  divine  ordinance;  as  Plato  says, 
'  Out  of  pity  for  the  wretched  life  of  mortals,  the  De- 
ity had  arranged  days  of  festal  recreation  and  re- 
freshment." ^  William  Von  Humboldt  says,  "I  am 
satisfied  that  the  six  days  are  really  the  true,  fit,  and 
adequate  measure  of  time  for  work,  w^hether  as  re- 
spects the  physical  strength  of  man,  or  his  persever- 
ance in  a  uniform  occupation.  There  is  also  some- 
thing human  in  the  arrangement  by  w^hich  those  ani- 
mals which  assist  man  in  his  work  enjoy  rest  along 
with  him.  To  lengthen  beyond  the  proper  measure  the 
periods  of  returning  repose,  would  be  as  inhuman  as  it 
would  be  foolish.  An  example  of  this  occurred  within 
my  own  experience.  When  I  was  in  Paris  during 
the  time  of  the  Revolution,  it  happened,  that,  without 
regard  to  the  divine  institution,  this  appointment  was 
made  to  give  way  to  the  dry,  wretched  decimal  sys- 
tem. Every  tenth  day  was  directed  to  be  observed 
as  a  Sunday,  and  all  ordinary  business  went  on  for 
nine  days  in  succession.  When  it  became  distinctly 
evident  that  this  was  far  too  much,  many  kept  holi- 
day on  the  Sunday  also,  as  far  as  the  police  laws  al- 
lowed; and  so  arose  on  the  other  hand,  too  much 
leisure.     In  this  way  one   always  oscillates  between 

*  Sabbath  Essays,  p.  26,  note,  quoted  by  Rev.  "W.W.  Atterbury, 
Sec.N.  Y.  Sab.  Com. 


THE  SABBATH  FOR  PHYSICAL  BEING  271 

the  two  extremes,  so  soon  as  one  leaves  the  rei^ular 
and  ordained  middle  path."  ' 

Lord  Macauley,  in  discoursing  on  the  physical  ben- 
efits of  the  Sabbath  says:  "While  industry  is  sus- 
pended— while  the  plow  lies  in  the  furrow — while 
the  exchange  is  silent — while  no  smoke  ascends  from 
the  factory,  a  process  is  going  on  quite  as  important  to 
the  wealth  of  the  nation  as  any  process  which  is  per- 
formed on  more  busy  days.  Man,  the  machine  of 
machines,  is  repairing  and  winding  up,  so  that  he  re- 
turns to  his  labors  on  Monday  with  clearer  intellect 
— with  livelier  spirits — with  renewed  corporgil  vigor." 

Rev.  Dr.  C.  A.Huntley  gives  the  following:  "Or- 
dinarily, men  are  no  losers  by  giving  up  one  day  in 
seven,  to  God,  even  in  temporal  things,  but  gainers 
rather.  Indeed,  man  was  not  made  for  unceasing  la- 
bour, whether  bodily  or  mental.  For  a  little  while 
he  may,  perhaps,  do  more  work  in  seven  days  than 
in  six;  but  not  for  a  continviance.  God's  physical 
laws  forbid  the  attempt  as  plainly  and  intelligibly  as 
his  moral  laws.  In  the  end  he  will  be  found  to  have 
done  the  most  who  has  at  due  intervals  suspended 
his  labor,  that  he  may  return  to  it  again  with  re- 
cruited strength  and  renewed  vigor,  and  with  that 
calmness  and  self=possession  which  he  has  gained 
by   communion  with   God   in  those  intervals."^ 

We  could  add  to  the  foregoing  matter  on  this  sub- 
ject a  great  multitude  of  other  facts  and  testimonies. 
Enough  have  been  given  to  show  that  there  is  a 
deep-seated  law  in  the  physical  nature  of  man,  which 
absolutely  requires   a  weekly  day  of    rest.      It   is  a 

^Letters,  etc.  Vol.  i.  p.  207;    Sabbath  Essays,  p.  29. 
2 Form  of  Sound  Words,  p.  269. 


272  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

law  of  God,  nearly  or  quite  as  well  established  as 
any  law  in  nature  can  be.  And  since  Jehovah  has 
revealed  that  one  seventh  part  of  time  should  be 
given  to  rest,  the  allotted  weekly  day  of  rest  should 
be  one  day  in  seven. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  ADVANTAGES  OF  THE   SABBATH  FOE  MENTAL  BEST, 
CAPACITY,  AND  CULTURE. 

A  Bane  mind  works  best  in  a  sound  body.  Being 
shown  that  the  weekly  rest  is  needful  for  the  physi- 
cal man,  it  is  in  that  already  shown  that  the  rest  is 
needful  for  the  intellectual  man.  The  dependence  of 
the  mind  upon  the  body  in  this  mortal  state,  is  so 
great  and  constant  as  to  be  beyond  human  calcula- 
tion. We  know  that  none  of  us  now  have  any  com- 
mand of  our  intellect  without  the  body.  And  we 
know  that  a  diseased  body  gives  a  beclouded  mind; 
and  sometimes  even  goes  so  far,  that  though  the 
mind  remain  in  the  body  it  becomes  useless,  help- 
less. We  know  also,  that  rest  of  mind  means  rest  of 
body  too,  and  often  we  can  not  tell  whether  it  is 
body  07ily  that  is  tired,  or  body  and  mind  both. 
Rest  for  the  body  is  rest  for  the  mind.  Weekly  rest 
for  the  body  is  weekly  rest  for  the  mind.  A  Sabbath 
for  the  body  is  a  Sabbath  for  the  soul.  As  the  day 
of  weekly  rest  is  economy  for  the  physical  being,  so  it 
is  for  the  intellectual  powers  ;  as  it  enhances  the 
physical  capacities,  and  increases  the  amount  of  their 
executive  power,  so  it  does  the  same  for  the  endow- 
ments and  executiveness  of  the  understanding.  Nu- 
merous demonstrations  have  shown,  that  men  of  great 
intellectual  labor  must  take  the  weekly  rest,  or  risk 

17  278 


274  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

the  failure  or  ruin  of  their  mental  powers.  Close  ob- 
servation has  shown,  that  under  secular  labor  and 
mental  application,  the  intellect  loses  more  vigor 
each  day  than  it  regains  each  night,  until  at  the  end 
of  the  week  the  rest-day  can  make  full  reparation  ;  or 
if  it  be  not  allowed  to  do  that  that  then  premature 
failure  of  mental  capacities  is  quite  sure  to  be  the 
result.  Many  men  of  long  life  and  great  intellectual 
labors  have  attributed  their  long-continued  success 
to  the  fact,  that  on  each  weekly  rest-day  they  have 
unstrung  the  bow,  and  given  it  relaxation.  A  man 
of  twenty^five  year's  observation  in  New  York  City, 
has  said  that  those  merchants  of  his  acquaintance 
who  have  kept  their  counting  rooms  open  on  Sun- 
day, have  failed  without  exception.  William  Wilber- 
force,  the  celebrated  philanthropist,  one  of  the  most 
laborious  men  that  ever  entered  the  British  Parlia- 
ment, said  he  could  never  have  accomplished  so 
much  public  business  as  he  did,  except  for  the  rest 
of  the  Sabbath.  Many  public  men  who  began  life 
with  him,  found  an  early  grave.  Some  became 
maniacs,  and  put  an  end  to  their  own  existence. 

The  cause  of  their  premature  and  untimely  end, 
Wilberforce  attributed  to  their  violation  of  the  law 
of  nature  in  disregarding  the  Sabbath,  and  allowing 
themselves  no  mental  rest  on  that  day.  A  distin- 
guished financier,  charged  with  an  immense  amount 
of  business  during  the  memorable  years  of  1836  and 
1837,  said:  "I  should  have  been  a  dead  man,  had  it 
not  been  for  the  Sabbath."  Isaac  Taylor  says:  "I 
am  prepared  to  affirm,  that  to  the  studious  especially, 
and  whether  younger  or  older,  a  Sabbath  well  spent, 
— spent  in  happy  exercises  of  the  heart — devotional 


TBE  SABBATH  FOR  THE  INTELLECT  275 

and  domestic — a  Sunday  given  to  the  soul  is  the  best 
of  all  means  of  refreshment  to  the  mere  intellect." 

It  is  a  law  in  general,  that  they  who  give  best  ob- 
servance to  the  Sabbath,  give  also  the  best  and  most 
successful  attention  to  pursuits  and  studies,  and 
studies  that  most  promote  culture,  civilization  and  so- 
cial happiness.  Lord  Macauley says:  "If  the  Sunday 
had  not  been  observed  as  a  day  of  rest,  but  the  axe, 
the  spade,  the  anvil,  and  the  loom,  had  been  at  work 
every  day  during  the  last  three  centuries  (in  Great 
Britain),  I  have  not  the  smallest  doubt  that  we 
should  have  been  at  this  moment  a  poorer  people  and 
a  less  civilized  people  than  we  are."  The  blessing 
to  domesiic  life,  of  keeping  the  Sabbath,  is  incalcula- 
ble. The  Sabbath  kept  holy,  will  bring  a  peaceful 
and  contented  spirit,  will  difPuse  solid  comfort  and 
enduring  prosperity.  There  is  a  conservative  power 
in  "  not  doing  thine  own  ways,  nor  finding  thine  own 
pleasure,  nor  speaking  thine  own  words"  one  day  in 
the  week,  according  to  the  ancient  Divine  instruction 
respecting  the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath.  Jonathan 
Edwards  says:  "A  peculiar  blessing  may  be  ex- 
pected upon  those  families  where  there  is  due  care 
taken  that  the  Sabbath  be  strictly  and  devoutly  ol)- 
eerved." 

Even  Pierre  Proudhon,  the  Atheist,  yet  penetra- 
ting philosopher,  in  discussing  the  Mosaic  Sabbath, 
relative  to  its  hygienic,  social,  political  and  moral 
bearings,  aims  to  show,  and  does  show,  that  it  is 
really  fitted  to  the  nature  and  wants  of  man.^  As 
quoted  by  Dr.  Paul  Niemeyer,  Proudhon  says  con- 
cerning  the    septenary   element     of     the     Sabbath, 

*  Sabbath  Essays,  p.  28. 


276  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

"  Shorten  the  week  by  a  single  day,  and  the  labor 
bears  too  small  a  proportion  to  the  rest;  lengthen 
the  week  to  the  same  extent,  and  labor  becomes 
excessive.  Establish  every  three  days  a  half-day 
of  rest,  and  you  increase  by  a  fraction  the  loss  of 
time,  while  in  severing  the  natural  unity  of  the  day 
you  break  the  numerical  harmony  of  things.  Ac- 
cord, on  the  other  hand,  forty  weight  hours  of  rest 
after  twelve  consecutive  days  of  toil,  you  kill  the 
man  with  inertia  after  having  exhausted  him  with 
fatigue."  Niemeyer,  himself  professor  of  hygiene  in 
the  Leipsic  universities,  has  entered  into  similar  in- 
vestigations and  comes  to  the  same  conclusions.  A 
summary  of  what  he  says  he  expresses  thus:  "If 
religion  calls  the  seventh  day  '  the  day  of  the  Lord.' 
the  hygienists  for  the  reasons  I  have  exhibited,  will 
call  Sunday  the  day  of  man."  ^  Other  hygienists 
and  social  philosophers,  as  Ochsenbein,^  and  Dr. 
Haegler  ^  of  Bale,  have  come  to  like  opinions  on 
purely  scientific  grounds  in  our  own  day.  The  evi- 
dence accumulates,  and  may  be  called  sufficient  for 
the  positive  deduction,  that  nature  accords  with  Scrip- 
ture in  demanding  a  septenary  Sabbath. 

The  Sabbath  expands  and  cultivates  the  intellect 
through  the  study  of  the  holy  Scriptures  which  it  se- 
cures. The  chief  part  of  the  study  of  the  Bible  is 
done  on  the  Sabbath.  There  would  be  but  little 
Biblical  study  in  the  week=time  were  it  not  for  the 
influence  and  sacred  occupation,  of  the  Sabbath.  An 
open  Bible  is  a  true  symbol  of  knowledge  opened  to 

1  Ibid,  p.  33, 

2  Ibid,  p.  SO. 

3  Ibid,  p.  83. 


THE  SABBATH  FOR  THE  INTELLECT  277 

the  people.  Ignorance  is  the  mark  set  upon  the 
people  wherever  the  Bible  is  withheld  from  them. 
The  Bible  bestows  a  view  of  the  only  living  and  true 
God,  and  of  his  infinite  attributes.  There  is  an  ele- 
vating, strengthening,  and  expanding  power  in  look- 
ing daily  towards  the  eternal  Jehovah.  We  can  not 
think  of  the  great  ''  I  am,"  who  is  without  beginning 
and  without  end,  Almighty,  Omnipotent,  heart- 
searching,  holy,  and  merciful,  without  intellectual 
expansion  and  culture.  It  produces  due  sobriety, 
reflection,  and  thought  on  high  themes,  as  well  as  on 
the  minutiae  of  life,  that  each  person  may  do  all  to 
the  glory  of  God.  The  Bible  is  also  superior  to  all 
other  books  in  making  man  acquainted  with  himself, 
and  that  enlarges  and  improves  the  understanding. 
Self-knowledge  is  a  way  to  success.  Self^acquaint- 
ance  may  guide  the  doom  of  our  destiny.  It  enables 
one  to  supply  the  defects  of  his  character.  It  shows 
him  his  need,  and  where  to  go  for  help.  And  yet,  all 
the  books  of  the  world  are  not  equal  for  self-knowl- 
edge to  many  a  single  page  of  the  Bible.  That  book 
also  gives  one  a  glance  into  the  future  state  and 
eternity,  which  promotes  carefulness  and  depth  of 
thought,  and  that  promotes  intellectual  discrimina- 
tion and  strength.  It  also  to  a  wonderful  degree  re- 
veals the  distinction  between  sin  and  holiness,  and 
that  gives  sharpness,  watchfulness  and  strength  to 
the  mind.  The  raised  aud  exalted  character  of  Bibli- 
cal literature  is  also  in  a  high  degree  fitted  to  expand 
and  cultivate  the  mental  powers.  And  all  of  this  and 
yet  other  gains  are  secured  by  remembering  the  Sab- 
bath-day to  keep  it  holy. 

But  it  is  not  desif^ned  that  this  mental  culture  shall 


278  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

be  sought  as  a  chief  end  on  the  Sabbath.  It  is  rather 
an  incidental  benefit.  It  comes  in  connection  with 
the  convocation  services  which  God  has  appointed 
for  the  Sabbath,  and  with  our  enjoyments  as  intel- 
lectual beings,  who  must  have  something  for  the 
mind  to  feed  upon  during  its  waking  hours.  Mental 
7'estf  we  should  remember,  is  one  of  the  Sabbath's 
advantages.  A  member  of  the  English  Parliament, 
Hon.  Hugh  Mason,  gave  November  30,  1880,  at  Free 
Trade  Hall,  Manchester,  the  following:  '*  There  is 
nothing  to  which  I  look  forward  with  greater  pleas- 
ure, hope,  and  thankfulness,  than  the  periodical  re- 
turn of  the  Day  of  Rest.  It  is  not  only  that  I  may 
have  the  pleasure  and  the  profit  of  assembling  in  the 
House  of  Prayer  with  other  men  and  women  like= 
minded;  there  is  something  in  addition  to  that,  some- 
thing which  every  busy  brain  and  busy  mind  rel- 
ishes— the  day  of  rest  from  worldly  work,  the 
throwing  away  of  every  mean  and  secular  occupation, 
and  feeling  that  the  mind  is  completely  at  rest  from 
all  the  distractions  and  all  the  anxieties  which  beset 
busy  people  in  the  course  of  their  daily  life,"  * 

Bishop  John  Hooper,  a  Reformed  clergyman  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  who  died  a  martyr  under 
Queen  Mary,  left  valuable  writings  on  the  subject 
of  the  Sabbath,  in  which  is  the  following:  "That 
man  might  breathe  and  have  repose,  this  Sabbath 
was  instituted,  not  only  that  the  body  should  be  re- 
stored unto  strength  and  made  able  to  sustain  the 
travails  of  the  week  to  come,  but  also  that  the  soul 
and  spirit  of  man  whiles  the  body  is  at  rest,  might 
upon  the  Sabbath  learn  and  know  so  the  blessed  will 

*  Time's  Feast  Heaven's  Foretaste,  pp.  112,  113. 


THE  SABBATH  FOR  THE  INTELLECT  279 

of  his  Maker  that  it  leave  not  the  labor  and  adversity 
of  sin  only,  but  also  by  God's  grace  receive  such 
strength  and  force  in  the  contemplation  of  God's 
most  merciful  promise,  that  it  may  be  able  to  sustain 
all  the  troubles  of  temptation  in  the  week  that  fol- 
loweth.  .  .  .  God  by  this  commandment  pro- 
videth  for  the  temporal  and  civil  life  of  man,  and 
likewise  for  all  things  which  be  necessary  and  expe- 
dient for  man  in  this  life.  If  man,  and  beast  that  is 
man's  servant,  should  without  repose  and  rest  always 
labor,  they  might  never  endure  'the  travail  of  the 
earth." 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  ADVANTAGES  OF   THE  SABBATH   FOR  SOCIETY  AND 
SOCIAL   REGENERATION. 

The  family  is  one  of  the  first  and  best  of  the  insti- 
tutions ever  given*  by  God  for  the  human  race.  And 
the  Sabbath  is  one  of  the  best  and  most  potent  friends 
which  the  family  ever  had.  On  the  Sabbath,  and  es- 
pecially in  the  house  of  God,  the  claims  of  our  social 
nature,  and  the  kinds  of  needed  social  regeneration, 
receive  their  most  pungent  and  thorough  considera- 
tion. Reforms  in  society  receive  more  their  origin 
and  impetus  on  the  Lord's  day,  than  on  all  other  days 
of  the  week.  The  nature  of  a  happy  family,  and  the 
duties  it  involves,  are  especially  thought  of  and  fash- 
ioned on  the  Christian  Sabbath.  The  old  Jewish 
family  was  superior  to  all  heathen  families  around  it. 
The  Christian  family  excels  all  others  of  its  time, 
other  opportunities  being  equally  distributed.  And 
it  is  the  Christian  Sabbath  that  gives  a  great  part  of 
its  character  and  value  to  the  Christian  family.  In 
the  Christian  family  the  desire  is  to  know  what  God 
wants,  and  generally  in  the  unchristian,  to  get  what 
self  wants.  In  the  Christian  family,  when  some  new 
intimation  comes  of  what  is  pleasing  to  the  Lord, 
there  is  an  endeavor  to  conform  the  rules  and  regula- 
tions of  the  family  to  the  new  light.  So  that  that 
family  becomes   constituted   and  ordered  somewhat 

280 


THE  SABBATH  FOR  SOCIAL  REGENERATION      281 

according  to  the  Divine  pattern,  much  as  Moses' 
artificers  conformed  the  tabernacle  and  the  furnish- 
ing of  it  to  the  pattern  which  Moses  saw  in  the 
mount.  And  in  all  this  process  lie  the  principles  of 
social  regeneration.  By  these  principles  society  can 
be  purified  and  built  up  in  righteousness.  In  this 
way  in  heathen  lands  Christianity  entering  the  souls 
of  individuals,  leavens  families,  and  they  leaven  so- 
ciety and  moral  renovation  ensues,  and  the  Sabbath 
is  a  potent  agency  for  it  all. 

The  servants  of  God  in  general  live  longer  and  do 
more  for  the  benefit  of  society  than  others  do;  and 
they  in  great  part  get  their  Christian  character  and 
abilities  through  means  and  agencies  given  by  the 
Sabbath.  It  is  found  that  the  average  length  of  human 
life  in  Christian  lands  is  increasing.  The  increase  is 
greatly  owing  to  religion;  and  the  religious  people  on 
an  average  live  longer  than  others.  And  they  live 
longer  because  of  right  and  useful  business,  and  be- 
cause of  Divine  solace  in  their  burdens  and  cares. 
This  is  a  part  of  the  blessings  conferred  by  the  Lord 
upon  those  that  serve  him.  And  that  service  of  the 
Lord  is  always  a  means  of  regeneration  in  society. 

A  servant  of  the  Lord  must  and  will  bear  his  testi- 
mony against  evil.  The  witness  of  many  combined 
becomes  a  powerful  lever  for  social  improvement. 
But  without  the  Sabbath  these  grave  questions  of 
purity  and  reform  and  happiness  would  get  but  little 
faithful  and  impressive  consideration.  The  heathen 
moral  philosophers  of  old,  could  write  well  some  moral 
maxims  and  principles,  but  they  had  no  sacred  Sah- 
hath  in  which  to  get  the  listening  ear  of  the  people, 
even  if  they  would.  Widely  extended  reformations 
could  not  follow. 


282  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Canon  Farrar  says  this: 

"For  families  in  which,  like  sheltered  flowers, 
spring  up  all  that  is  purest  and  sweetest  in  human 
lives;  for  marriage  exalted  to  an  almost  sacramental 
dignity;  for  all  that  circle  of  heavenly  blessings 
which  result  from  a  common  self-sacrifice;  for  that 
beautiful  unison  of  noble  manhood,  stainless  woman- 
hood, joyous  infancy,  and  uncontaminated  youth; 
in  one  word,  for  all  that  there  is  of  divinity  and 
sweetness  in  the  one  word  Home!  for  this — to  an 
extent  which  we  can  hardly  realize — we  are  indebted 
to  Christianity  alone."  ^  But  how  could  we  have 
Christianity  without  the  Sabbath?  Count  Monta- 
lembert  says:  "There  is  no  religion  without  wor- 
ship, and  there  is  no  worship  without  the  Sabbath." 
From  the  testimony  of  these  two  distinguished  wri- 
ters we  may  deduce  the  lesson,  that  good  society  de- 
pends in  great  measure  upon  the  Sabbath. 

The  mere  fact  of  the  frequent  change  from  the 
secular  to  the  religious  given  by  the  Sabbath,  and 
then  back  again  to  the  secular  for  provision  for  our 
earthly  needs  in  itself  makes  the  Sabbath  an  especial 
blessing  to  society.  A  French  writer  has  the  fol- 
lowing: "God  knows  that  we  have  need  of  change, 
and  he  provides  generously  for  this  necessity  of  our 
nature.  He  does  not,  indeed,  grant  to  most  of  us 
the  costly  pleasure  of  travel,  but  he  gives  something 
else — the  Lord's  day — the  Christian  Sabbath,  which 
interrupts  the  rude  labour  of  the  week,  which  brings 
with  it  family  joys  and  rest  of  conscience,  which 
gives  us  communion  with  our  father  and  our  breth- 
ren, and   which   procures   to  us   here   below  a  fore- 

^  Witn  ess  of  history  to  Christ,  p.  183. 


THE  SABBATH  FOR  SOCIAL  REGENERATION       283 

taste  of  the  life  to  come.  Ah!  if  only,  in  our  fever= 
ish,  harassed  age,  each  toiler  would  but  accept  the 
blessings  of  the  Sabbath!  WUhout  fhe  Sabbath  life 
is  but  one  long  sigh.  Woe  to  the  poor  toiler,  above 
all,  who  on  that  day  gives  himself  to  work  as  a  beast 
of  burden,  incapable  of  discerning  the  needs  of  his 
body,  or  as  if  he  had  no  soul  to  guide  him!"  "  Le 
Besoin  de  Cha.ngement,''^  Bulletin  Dominical^  May, 
1880} 

The  Earl  of  Shaftesbury  says:  "Sunday  is  a 
day  so  sacred,  so  important,  so  indispensable  to 
man,  that  it  ought  to  be  hedged  round  by  every 
form  of  reverence.  Its  adaptability  to  the  wants 
and  necessities  of  society,  the  wisdom  of  its  insti- 
tution, proves  it  to  be  Divine;  and,  my  lords,  the 
working  people  of  this  country — the  great  bulk  of 
the  working  people — regard  it  in  that  light.  They 
differ,  no  doubt,  many  of  them.  Some  take  a  religi- 
ous view  of  the  matter;  others  take  a  more  political 
view  of  it;  but  all  are  of  this  mind,  that  the  sanctity 
of  Sunday  is  to  them  a  grand  protection."  ^ 

Says  Emerson :  '*  Two  inestimable  advantages 
Christianity  has  given  us — first,  the  institution  of 
preaching,  the  speech  of  man  to  man;  and,  secondly, 
the  Sabbath,  the  jubilee  of  the  whole  world,  whose 
light  dawns  welcome  alike  into  the  closet  of  the 
philosopher,  into  the  garret  of  toil;  and  into  prison 
cells,  and  everywhere  suggests,  even  to  the  vile,  the  dig- 
nity of  spiritual  being.  Let  it  stand  for  evermore  a 
temple,  which  new  light,  new  love,  and  new  hope  shall 
restore  to  more  than  its  first  splendour  to  mankind." 

*  Dr.  Gritton's  Times'  Feast  Heaven's  Foretaste,  p.  111. 
-Dr.  GrittoD"s  Time's  Feast,  etc.,  p.  117. 


284  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

It  cannot  be  that  the  best  state  of  society  is  ever 
secured  without  the  Sabbath.  We  may  judge  so 
from  first  principles  involved  in  the  case,  and  we  may 
know  it  also  from  the  history  of  society  in  many 
lands.  The  purest  state  of  society  has  always  existed 
where  the  Sabbath  has  been  best  kept.  The  family 
there  has  been  less  disintegrated  by  sin,  divorce  has 
there  been  less  frequent.  Morality  has  there  most 
prevailed.  Improvement  in  Sabbath  observance  in 
any  community  means  social  improvement.  A  profan- 
ation of  the  Sabbath  means  a  lower  state  of  morals, 
and  society  more  impure.  The  Sabbath  converted 
from  a  holy  day  to  a  holiday  means  other  looseness  of 
morals,  and  general  social  degradation.  A  thorough 
social  regeneration  were  impossible  without  the  aid 
of  a  holy  Sabbath. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE    ADVANTAGES    OF    THE    SABBATH    FOR    THE    WEL. 
FARE   AND   PRESERVATION   OF   THE   STATE. 

What  can  save  nations  and  give  them  enduring 
life?  This  has  been  one  of  the  questions  of  the  ages. 
Many  sad  and  disastrous  experiments  have  been  made. 
The  rise  and  fall  of  nations  fill  many  pages  of  history. 
Mankind  are  clambering  for  wealth.  Can  wealth 
really  exalt  and  perpetuate  a  nation?  It  gives  a  basis 
on  which  men  erect  their  pride  and  ostentation.  It 
often  gives  convenience  and  comfort,  though  not  as 
much  as  general  prosperity  gives  with  neither  ex- 
treme poverty  nor  great  riches.  Wealth  often  se- 
cures praise  and  glory,  and  even  sycophancy  and 
worship  from  some.  Will  any  tell  us  that  a  nation 
rich  in  resources  and  treasures  is  a  splendid  object? 
Its  splendor  is  no  insurance  for  permanence.  Will 
any  point  to  memorable  examples  of  antiquity,  and 
read  to  us  the  full  roll  of  opulent  nations  of  the  past? 
Their  splendor  passed  away  as  the  mist  of  the  morn- 
ing. They  are  fallen  and  destroyed.  Not  even  the 
name  of  some  is  any  honor  to  them  in  history.  With 
many  or  all  of  them  their  riches  were  their  destroying 
worm. 

Can  physical  power,  force  of  arms,  mighty 
armies,    fleets    and    navies,   cause   a   nation   to   en- 

285 


286  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

dure?  Where  now  is  ancient  Rome,  that  sat  upon 
her  seven  hills  of  glory  and  power,  that  sent  her 
fleets  and  governors  and  armies  abroad  among 
the  nations  on  schemes  of  conquest,  and  left  scarcely 
a  dominion  of  the  world  beyond  her  wide  embrace? 
Rome  is  now  only  one  of  the  feeblest  of  states  instead 
of  a  kingdom,  and  it  were  almost  forgotten  among 
men,  except  for  the  dazzling  views  of  her  former  splen- 
dor. What  could  have  saved  Rome  so  that  no  his- 
torian should  have  ever  written  the  sad  story  of  her 
decline  and  fall? 

Alexander  the  Great  was  so  endowed  with  power 
that  he  conquered  the  world,  as  we  say,  and  then  sat 
down  and  wept  that  there  was  no  more  for  him  to 
conquer.  And  yet,  w^ith  all  his  might,  he  was  so 
weak  that  he  w^as  seduced  and  ruined  by  the  vices  of 
the  very  people  whom  he  had  vanquished.  He  has 
no  honorable  name  like  even  that  of  Socrates,  and 
yet  Socrates  never  had  ten  soldiers   at  his  command. 

Can  literature  and  the  arts  truly  perpetuate  a  na- 
tion? The  wisdom  and  learning  of  all  Greece,  which 
stretching  downwards  in  the  stream  of  time  become  a 
fascination  and  a  wonder  for  the  present  world,  were 
unable  to  save.  Neither  her  learning  nor  eloquence 
could  uproot  the  slavery  of  her  masses,  or  cast  out 
the  demon  of  her  corruption.  Her  transgressions  of 
even  nature's  holy  laws  finally  swept  her  away  with 
all  the  rubbish  of  nations  long  since  destroyed  and 
lost. 

Can  commerce  give  the  elements  of  endurance  to 
nations?  What  power  has  commerce  which  wealth 
has  not?  Since  the  latter  fails  the  former  must.  Does 
our  system   of  almost   universal   education,  now  so 


THE  SABBATH  FOR  THE  STATE  287 

noted  and  so  absorbent  of  attention  and  admiration, 
our  common  schools  strewn  abroad  in  almost  every 
district  where  universal  freedom  has  long  prevailed, 
and  our  seminaries  of  learning,  dotting  and  enlight- 
ening and  gilding  our  nation,  do  all  these  really  give 
a  guarantee  in  themselves  of  endurance  to  this  nation? 
Education,  learning,  separate  from  gospel  conversion 
and  culture  of  the  soul,  after  all  the  glorying  it  has 
received,  is  of  very  doubtful  influence  and  character. 
Mere  knowledge  may  be  used  for  sin  and  corruption, 
and  often  has  been.  Many  statistics  among  civilized 
nations  go  to  show  that  the  morals  of  men  have  often 
grown  worse  while  their  intellectual  advantages  have 
grown  better. 

Not  even  morality  has  the  power  to  preser^^e  if  des- 
titute of  the  element  of  righteousness.  The  outward 
moral  life,  without  the  inner  heart  of  piety,  will  leave 
the  heart  of  sin  to  break  forth  in  ulcers  of  corruption. 
Morality  is  not  righteousness  itself.  If  a  man  goes 
into  a  field  where  grow  both  wheat  and  corn,  and 
coming  to  a  plant  which  of  course  has  leaves  and 
stems,  begins  to  contend  that  it  is  wheat  because  it 
has  leaves  and  stems,  when  it  is  plain  to  every  be- 
holder that  the  plant  is  only  a  tare,  he  w^ould  not  be 
more  unwise  than  one  who  claims  that  morality  is 
righteousness  because  the  two  have  some  features  in 
common.  One  inherent  property  of  gold  is  mallea- 
bility, the  capacity  of  being  drawn  under  the  ham- 
mer or  rolling  press.  But  w^hat  folly  for  one  to  bring 
us  a  piece  of  iVo??,  and,  demonstrating  that  it  also  is 
malleable,  should  set  up  a  stout  argument  that  the 
iron  is  gold  and  that  we  ought  to  receive  it  as  such  in 
payment  of  debt.     Greater  folly  is  it  to  contend  that 


288  '  SABBATH  AhD  SUNDAY 

morality  is  righteousness,  or  equally  valuable  for  a 
nation. 

But  what  can  preserve  nations?  The  Divine  word 
says  that  "Righteousness  exalteth  a  nation."  In  that 
exaltation  continued  there  is  permanence.  Right- 
eousness is  so  right,  so  pure,  so  fair  and  so  full  of 
love  to  God  and  men,  that  it  will  not  itself  perish, 
nor  suffer  that  which  it  permeates  to  perish.  The 
very  elements  of  righteousness  are  purifying  and  ex- 
alting. It  will  drive  out  evil,  it  will  contend  against 
all  corrupting  and  degrading  forces.  Righteousness 
can  not  work  at  all,  either  with  individuals  or  nations, 
except  it  makes  pure,  or  keeps  pure,  or  prospers  and 
builds.  A  nation  that  receives  and  cherishes  right- 
eousness may  be  sure  that  it  has  a  preserving  and  el- 
evating force  within  itself.  Righteousness  put  into 
the  heart  and  life  of  a  nation,  will  cleanse  and  ennoble, 
will  give  a  national  and  normal  power,  will  make  the 
laws  and  functions  of  being  do  the  part  which  the 
all^wise  God  has  assigned  them. 

The  sine  qua  non  of  national  prosperity  and  pres- 
ervation is  righteousness,  and  a  sine  qua  non  of 
national  righteousness  is  a  holily  kept  Sabbath.  But 
even  an  outwardly  observed  Sabbath  is  of  great 
national  value.  Since  the  physical,  intellectual  and 
social  man  requires  the  Sabbath  for  his  good,  then 
the  state  demands  it  on  the  same  grounds.  The  high- 
est interests  of  the  state  are  made  up  of  the  highest 
interests  of  the  individuals  comprising  the  state. 
Says  Blackstone,  the  noted  law  commentator,  "  The 
keeping  of  one  day  in  seven  holy,  or  a  time  of  relaxation 
and  refreshment,  as  well  as  for  public  worship,  is  of  ad- 
mirable service  to  a  state,  considered  merely  as  a  civil 


THE  SABBATH  FOR  THE  STATE  289 

institution."  Adam  Smith,  a  Scottish  philosopher 
and  political  economist,  says:  "The  Sabbath  as  a  po- 
litical institution,  is  of  inestimable  value  independ- 
ently of  its  claims  to  Divine  authority."  History 
and  reason,  the  analysis  and  synthesis  of  the  whole 
subject,  overwhelmingly  confirm  all  this  testimony  of 
so  able  men. 

Nations  may  rise  or  fall  by  the  observance  or  non- 
observance  of  the  Sabbath.  Sabbath  desecration  will 
eat  out  industry,  integrity  and  honor,  in  the  long 
trial.  No  nation  can  afford  to  do  without  a  well-ob- 
served Sabbath.  Criticize  the  Puritans  as  much  as 
we  will,  admit  though  we  may  that  some  of  them 
were  over-rigid  in  their  Sabbath  observance,  it  still 
remains  true,  that  their  sacredly  observed  Sabbath 
was  a  great  means  of  their  grand  exaltation  and 
honor  among  men,  and  of  their  being  the  salt 
of  preservation  and  purity  to  both  England  and 
America.  The  days  of  a  lax  Sabbath  in  England, 
have  been  eras  of  deterioration  and  corruption.  A 
forerunner  of  ruin  in  the  French  nation  was  the  at- 
tempt to  annihilate  the  Sabbath.  When  private  and 
public  virtue  begins  to  rise  in  any  land  the  Sabbath 
begins  to  be  better  observed.  Even  a  poorly  ob- 
served Sabbath  is  better  than  none  for  national  in- 
tegrity. 

The  Sabbath  is  one  of  the  bulwarks  of  the  state. 
Strange  that  so  many  are  blind,  to  its  value.  Laws 
to  protect  the  Sabbath,  are  wise  and  just  if  w^ithin 
the  bounds  of  discretion,  and  not  an  interference 
with  rightful  liberty.  Sir  Charles  Reed,  chairman  of 
the  London  School  Board  says:  "The  defence  of 
the  Sabbath  is  a  patriotic  duty.     Those  who  would 

18 


290  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

remove  the  ancient  landmarks  are  not  the  working- 
man's  true  friend.  Their  success  means  a  loss,  and 
not  a  gain,  to  the  laboring  man." 

And  laws  for  the  defence  of  the  Sabbath  as  a  civil 
institution,  are  not  laws  for  the  establishment  of  re- 
ligion, nor  for  the  union  of  church  and  state.  Some 
regard  for  morals,  and  for  the  means  of  good  morals, 
must  be  had  for  the  true  welfare  of  the  state.  The 
Sabbath  being  filled  with  blessings  for  the  physical, 
intellectual,  and  social  man,  it  can  be  protected  with- 
out any  just  charge  of  ecclesiastical  legislation  or  op- 
pression. "Laws  which  suspend  labour  on  Sundays 
are  not  laws  to  enforce  the  religious  observance  of 
the  day.  They  give  men  the  opportunity  of  relig- 
iously observing  the  day;  but  they  do  not,  they  can 
not  enforce  the  keeping  of  the  day  holy  to  God. 
They  protect  men  in  the  enjoyment  of  a  great  physi- 
cal and  moral  blessing.  They  secure  the  labourer 
from  the  grip  of  his  employer  by  declaring  ordinary 
labour  to  be  illegal  on  Sundays."' 

Pere  Hyacinthe,  at  Geneva  Conference,  gave  this 
testimony:  "The  Lord's  day  is  not  the  day  of  God 
only;  it  is  the  day  of  humanity.  This  is  the  true 
democratic  festival — this  day  of  God  and  man.  And 
yet  this  is  the  day  which  certain  friends  of  the  peo- 
ple wish  to  deprive  them  of.  False  friends  that 
cheat  them  with  the  name  of  liberty,  thinking  only  of 
their  bodily  needs,  and  not  wisely  even  of  those."  ^ 
Thus  do  men  of  different  nationalities,  and  of  differ- 
ent schools  of  the  Christian  faith,  agree  in  their  tes- 
timony respecting  the  Sabbath. 

^  Sunday  Laws,  by  Charles  Hill,  p.  10. 

2  Dr.  Gritton's  Time's  Feast,  etc.,  pp.  115,  116. 


THE  SABBATH  FOR  THE  STATE  291 

Another  French  writer,  Monsieur  Loyson,  pleading 
for  a  well' observed  Sabbath  in  France,  points  to 
two  nations  which  in  some  measure  exemplify  what 
he  desires:  "Let  us  examine  two  industrial  powers 
which  are  fully  our  equals,  if  they  do  not  surpass  us 
— England  and  the  United  States.  In  London,  in 
the  great  city,  where  floods  of  busy  men  fill  the 
streets,  in  the  midst  of  the  repeated  incessant  sound 
of  all  the  echoes  of  labour,  there  occurs  every  week  a 
day  which  recalls  to  me  those  of  my  childhood.  The 
gigantic  machine  which,  on  the  eve  of  that  day,  put 
all  in  movement,  stops:  everywhere  repose  and  si- 
lence; the  bells  alone — Protestant  bells,  I  know,  but 
— they  send  their  sweet  melodies  heavenwards.  It 
seems  as  if  the  very  fogs  of  the  Thames  and  of  the 
ocean  had  grown  lighter.  Let  me  not  be  told  that 
the  Sunday  rest  in  England  is  a  remnant  of  feu- 
dality and  aristocracy,  soon  to  be  swept  away  by  the 
breath  of  Liberty.  Behold  in  America  that  strong 
and  young  Anglo=  Saxon  race,  which  certainly  is  not 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  which  has  in  its  constitution 
the  most  complete  liberty.  It  also  observes  Sunday 
.  .  .  and  sends  us  across  the  ocean  the  same 
answer  as  England — the  silence  of  God  at  the  blas- 
phemies of  men.  No;  we  do  not  ask  that  the  Sun- 
day should  be  imposed  upon  the  people  by  laws  of 
which  the  application  would  oflPer  more  inconvenience 
than  advantage.  We  ask  the  liberty  of  the  Sunday, 
and  Sunday  by  liberty."  ^ 

While  the  wise  and  good  of  European  lands  look 
with  longing  desire  to  the  Christian  Sabbath  of  the 

*  "  Daily  News,"  Sept.  27,  1867.  Dr.  Gritton's  Times  Feast, 
etc.,  p.  132. 


292  '        SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

United  States,  shall  we  of  this  union  be  so  false  to 
our  own  weal  and  honor  as  to  adopt  the  European 
Continental  Sabbath,  which  changes  the  weekly  holy- 
day  into  a  worldly  holiday,  and  which  is  so  great  a 
sorrow  to  all  the  godly  that  have  to  endure  it? 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE    ADVANTAGES  OF    THE    SABBATH    IN    ITS    REWARD 
FOR     OBSERVANCE. 

Encouragement  and  hope  for  doing  right  are  primal 
qualities.  These  the  Sabbath  gives.  One  exemplify- 
ing passage  is  this;  "  Then  shalt  thou  delight  thyself 
in  the  Lord,  and  I  will  cause  thee  to  ride  upon  the 
high  places  of  the  earth,  and  feed  thee  with  the  heri- 
tage of  Jacob  thy  father;  for  the  mouth  of  the  Lord 
hath  spoken  it"  (Isa.  lviii:14).  In  the  scriptures 
the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath  is  supposed  to  be  ac- 
companied with  the  keeping  of  the  other  command- 
ments. It  is  so  important  and  cardinal  a  duty  that 
often  around  it  seem  to  circle,  as  the  planets  around 
their  central  orb,  all  the  other  duties  of  the  Christian 
religion.  Great  is  the  reward  for  striving  to  keep  all 
of  Christ's  words.  He  says:  ''Blessed  are  the  poor 
in  spirit."  "  Blessed  are  the  meek."  "  Blessed  are  the 
pure  in  heart."  He  says,  also:  "  Blessed  is  the  man 
that  keepeth  the  Sabbath  from  polluting 
it.  .  .  .  Also  the  sons  of  the  stranger, 
every  one  that  keepeth  the  Sabbath  from  polluting 
it,  or  taketh  hold  of  my  covenant "  (Isa.  lvi:26). 
Sabbath-keeping  is  placed  by  the  side  of  keeping  cove- 
nant with  God.  Has  God  any  rewards  for  his  ser- 
vants? Has  he  blessings  for  his  people?  They  are 
vouchsafed   to   him  who   keeps   the    Sabbath    holy. 

293 


294  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

And  punishment  awaits  those  who  profane  the  Sab- 
bath. "  Her  priests  have  violated  my  law 
and  have  hid  their  eyes  from  my  Sabbaths,  and  I  am 
profaned  among  them.  Therefore  have  I  poured  out 
mine  indignation  upon  them  "  ( Ezek.  xxii  :26,  31). 
The  same  Divine  principles  pertaining  to  reward  and 
punishment  pervade  the  new  dispensation  that  be- 
longed to  the  old.  We  have  the  sacred  day  and  the 
sacred  convocations  of  the  day  to  observe  now  as 
much  as  ever.  The  weight  of  obligation  is  increased 
as  we  come  into  the  new  dispensation,  for  the  light 
and  the  advantages  are  the  more.  They  who  do  not 
regard  the  Sabbath  may  know  that  they  have  not  the 
guarantee  for  the  Divine  blessing.  They  may  receive 
mercies  still,  but  not  because  of  the  promise.  The 
young  have  peculiar  advantages  for  prosperity  in  ob- 
serving the  Sabbath.  If  they  will  early  begm  to  do 
it,  and  then  persevere,  they  will  in  some  way  ride 
upon  the  high  places  of  the  earth ;  they  will  be  safely 
borne  through  the  stormiest  trials;  they  will  have 
Divine  provision  for  their  wants;  they  will  be  fed 
with  the  heritage  of  Jacob.  Pres.  Wayland,  in 
speaking  of  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  says: 
"  Every  attentive  observer  has  remarked,  that  the  vio- 
lation of  this  command  by  the  young,  is  one  of  the 
most  decided  marks  of  incipient  degeneracy.  Religi- 
ous restraint  is  fast  losing  its  hold  upon  that  young 
man,  who,  having  been  brought  up  in  the  fear  of 
God,  begins  to  spend  the  Sabbath  in  idleness,  or  in 
amusement. " 

When  it  is  found  that  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  is 
trampled  upon  by  individuals  or  communities,  there 
is  no  surer  evidence  thai  there  has  become  an  insane 


THE  SABBATH  IN  ITS  REWARD  295 

love  of  the  world;  reason  is  subjected  to  appetite  and 
passion;  a  heaven=daring  spirit  has  begun  its  rule; 
recklessness  is  engendered ;  carnal  pleasure — not  duty 
and  the  highest  happiness — has  become  the  law  of 
the  soul,  and  the  judgments  of  God  are  upon  the 
track,  and  without  repentance  and  reformation  the 
doom  of  final  condemnation  is  sealed. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  is  ob- 
served, if  the  day  is  esteemed  a  delight,  if  it  is  pleas- 
ure to  the  soul,  or  to  the  community,  to  honor  the  day 
as  that  which  God  has  honored,  then  the  blessing 
will  be  that  which  God  gave  to  the  day  in  the  begin- 
ning. He  "  blessed  the  seventh  day  and  sanctified 
it";  he  will  assuredly  bless  those  who  also  sanctify  it. 
No  sabbath^keeping  person  was  ever  without  the 
special  and  peculiar  blessing  of  God;  no  sabbath- 
keeping  nation  has  ever  perished;  no  sabbath^keep- 
ing  soul  has  ever  been  lost. 

In  the  keeping  of  his  commandments  there  is  great 
reward  (Psalm  xix:ll).  This  is  true  respecting  the 
statute  of  the  Sabbath  or  of  any  other  command. 
Very  many  are  the  evidences  of  providential  prosper- 
ity and  preservation  to  those  who  keep  the  Sabbath. 
Working  seven  days  in  the  week  instead  of  six,  on 
the  score  of  economy  has  many  times  been  proven  a 
failure,  both  for  man  and  beast;  for  man  both  physic- 
ally and  mentally.  Those  who  would  make  haste  in 
journeying  by  traveling  on  the  Sabbath,  have  often 
been  defeated  in  their  object,  besides  abusing  their 
own  souls  by  their  disregard  of  God's  requirements, 
and  doing  harm  to  others  by  their  evil  example. 
Those  who  sacredly  rest  on  the  Sabbath,  clearly  ob- 
tain physical,  intellectual,  and  religious  reward.      Be- 


296  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

sides  that,  they  seem  on  the  whole  to  have  a  peculiar 
favoring  of  Providence,  which  gives  them  blessings 
in  addition  to  those  of  the  natural  laws  ordained  of 
God.  Sabbath-breaking  causes  recklessness,  and 
that  causes  more  accidents,  and  more  deaths  by- 
accidents  on  that  day  than  on  any  other  in  propor- 
tion to  the  amount  of  exposure.  And  in  addition, 
providential  judgments  often  especially  seem  to  fol- 
low those  who  trample  on  the  Sabbath. 

In  the  Boston  Sabbath  convention,  year  1879,  M. 
Field  Fowler,  Esq.,  gave  the  following  testimony  con- 
cerning the  running  of  the  Metropolitan  horse=cars 
in  that  city:  "  Soon  I  saw  some  of  the  evils  growing 
out  of  this  business.  In  the  first  place,  we  had  much 
trouble  with  our  conductors  in  keeping  them  honest. 
It  is  impossible  to  get  honest  men,  and  keep  them  so, 
and  make  them  work  on  Sundays  You  employ  them 
to  violate  the  Fourth  commandment,  and  expect 
them  to  respect  the  Eighth;  you  find  human  nature 
is  such  that  both  conductors  and  drivers  suffer. 
Drivers  become  reckless,  are  not  careful,  their  facul- 
ties become  blunted,  and  more  accidents  result.  The 
managers  employed  detectives.  I  remember  a  young 
man  came  to  one  of  the  directors,  and  wanted  to  know 
why  he  was  discharged.  "  Because  we  think  more 
money  goes  into  your  pockets  than  comes  out."  He 
confessed  it;  and  the  reason  he  gave  was,  that  his 
driver  said  if  he  would  not  divide  with  him,  he  would 
put  him  over  the  road  so  that  he  couldn't  get  half  as 
many  passengers.     In  every  way  it  was  demoralizing. 

Furthermore,  as  to  the  horses,  what  is  the  result? 
You  work  horses  every  day,  year  in  and  year  out. 
Talk  about  cruelty  to  animals,  why,  it  is  like  putting 


THE  SABBATH  IN  ITS  REWARD  291 

a  horse  on  a  treadmill,  and  keeping  him  going  until 
he  almost  drops.  The  result  is,  you  use  up  horses  in 
a  very  short  time.  Of  course  some  work  them  harder 
than  others,  but  I  believe  two  or  three  years  is  con- 
sidered about  the  average  length  of  usefulness  of  a 
horse  on  New  York  roads,  and  three  or  four  here,  per- 
haps. The  harder  you  work  them  the  more  you  have 
to  feed  them.  The  president  of  one  of  the  horse 
railroads  of  New  York  told  me  he  made  an  experi- 
ment, and  decided  the  thing  to  his  satisfaction.  He 
found  that,  on  every  thousand  horses,  it  cost  them  a 
thousand  dollars  a  day  more  to  feed  them  than  if  they 
had  Sunday  to  rest  in  ...  I  am  convinced  by 
investigation  that  the  running  of  horse=cars  on  Sun- 
day involves  the  employment  of  certainly  twenty=five 
per  cent,  if  not  more  of  horses,  than  if  you  rest  them 
on  that  day.  Take  the  omnibuses;  they  don't  run 
Sundays.  Mr.  Hathorne  tried  it  one  year,  and  he 
said  if  kept  up  it  would  ruin  him.  New  York  omni- 
buses do  not  run  on  Sundays;  there  is  no  profit  in  it."  ' 

The  Hartford  Steam  Boiler  Inspection  &  Insur- 
ance Company,  discern  the  same  principle  of  reward 
for  keeping  the  Sabbath,  and  express  themselves 
thus:  "The  custom  of  making  rej^airs  and  improve- 
ments on  the  Sabbath  is,  in  our  opinion,  a  loss  in  the 
end.  ...  If  men  are  required  to  work  on  the  Sab- 
bath, the  influence  will  be  demoralizing.  They  will 
not  have  the  same  respect  for  any  law  as  they  other- 
wise would,  nor  will  they,  in  our  opinion,  have  the 
same  respect  for  their  employers'  interest.  The 
whole  practice  is  wrong,  and  contrary  to  the  instinct 
of  those  even  who  have  religious  convictions.     .     .     . 

*  Sabbath  Essays,  pp.  422,  423. 


298  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Work  of  necessity  is  different  and  there  would  be  no 
difference  of  opinion  on  that  point.  But  be  careful 
not  to  imagine  a  mercenary  feeling  into  a  necessity!" 

The  unprofitableness  of  violating  the  fourth  com- 
mandment is  being  more  and  more  acknowledged  and 
considered  by  the  truly  observing.  Rev.  W.  W. 
Atterbury,  Secretary  of  the  New  York  Sabbath  Com- 
mittee, in  the  Boston  Convention  said:  "  In  Germany 
many  of  the  prominent  pastors  have  felt  the  vital  need 
of  a  more  religious  observance  of  the  day,  and  are  ac- 
tively engaged  in  promoting  it;  and  the  Supreme 
Church  Council  of  Prussia,  and  several  of  the  provin- 
cial synods,  have  earnestly  taken  up  the  matter.  The 
Reformed  Church  assemblies  of  Bohemia  and  Hun- 
gary have  recently  called  attention  to  the  same  sub- 
ject. In  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  France  and 
to  some  extent  in  Belgium  and  elsewhere,  there  ex- 
ists a  similar  movement;  and  a  religious  association 
formed  for  this  purpose  a  few  years  ago  received  the 
special  benediction  of  Pope  Pius  IX.  .  .  .  Soci- 
eties have  been  formed  in  nearly  every  country  of 
Europe  for  promoting  the  secular  and  civil  as  well  as 
the  religious  observance  of  Sunday.  The  Social 
Democrats  of  Germany,  at  their  Conference  in  1877, 
affirmed  as  one  of  their  principles,  the  suspension  of 
work  on  Sunday  to  be  assumed  by  the  State."  ^ 

If  we  contrast  the  Sabbath  observed  with  the  Sab- 
bath desecrated,  we  shall  everywhere  see  that  there  is 
reward  for  sacredly  regarding  the  fourth  command- 
ment. The  Church^going  throngs  are  far  more 
attractive  to  the  candid  eye  than  the  Sabbath=break- 
ing  excursions.     The  quiet  Sabbath=keeping  family 

'  Sab.  Essays,  pp.  406,  407. 


THE  SABBATH  IN  ITS  REWARD  299 

is  far  more  beautiful  at  home,  than  the  pleasure- 
seekers  abroad.  The  young  man  who  goes  to  the 
Sanctuary  and  the  Sabbath= school,  and  then  to  his 
father's  roof  for  Sabbath=reading  and  conversation, 
gives  far  better  promise  than  the  young  man  who 
sleeps  away  the  church=going  hours,  and  then  strolls 
off  through  fields  and  woods,  or  dashes  through  the 
streets  on  a  Sunday  afternoon  ride.  The  Sabbath^ 
keeping,  church  going  young  lady  is  far  more  lovely 
and  promising  than  the  worldly,  vain,  church^hating 
young  woman — hardly  a  lady — who  invites  company 
to  her  parlors,  or  seeks  it  by  walks  with  young  men 
on  the  Lord's  day.  Children  trained  to  Sabbath 
observance,  have  far  superior  manners,  and  graces  of 
spirit,  as  compared  with  those  that  are  trained  in  an 
utterly  Sabbathless  home. 

An  English  Sabbath  is  thus  described  by  one  born 
and  loved  in  it:  ''Which  of  the  Sabbath=desecrating 
nations  of  Europe  does  not  envy  us?  They  may 
throw  out  the  taunt  against  our  English  Sunday  of 
irisieness,  and  melancholy,  and  gloom:  but  hardly 
can  they  look  upon  the  glad  multitudes  as  they 
throng  to  the  house  of  God — the  closed  shop  and 
warehouse  announcing  that  the  inmates  are  enjoying 
their  privileged  and  protected  rest — the  well=dressed 
artisan  and  his  family  meditating  in  the  fields  at 
eventide — and  the  great  city,  with  its  silence  un- 
broken by  the  sound  of  axe  or  hammer, — hardly  can 
their  eyes  rest  on  such  a  scene  as  this,  without  the 
thought  forcing  itself  upon  them,  Happy  are  the 
people  that  are  in  such  a  case:  yea  blessed  are  the 
people  who  have  the  Lord  for  their  God."  ^ 

^Our  Sundays,  by  Dr.  Moore,  p.  29;  Dr.  Gritton's  Time'e 
Feast,  etc.  p.  119. 


300  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

Yet  another  English  writer,  Dr.  James  Hamilton, 
says:  *'0h!  blessed  Sabbath,  needed  for  a  world  of 
innocence!  Without  thee,  what  would  be  a  world  of 
sin!  Like  its  Lord,  it  rises  upon  us  as  the  light  of 
seven  days  with  healing  in  its  wings.  It  has  been 
the  coronation^day  of  martyrs — the  feast-day  of 
saints.  It  has  been  from  the  first  until  now,  the 
sublime  custom  of  the  Churches  of  God.  Still  the 
outgoings  of  its  morning  and  evening  rejoice.  It  is 
a  day  of  heaven  and  earth,  life's  sweetest  calm,  pov- 
erty's best  birthright,  labour's  only  rest.  Nothing 
has  such  hoary  antiquity  upon  it — nothing  contains 
in  it  such  a  history — nothing  draws  along  with  it 
such  a  glory.  Nurse  of  virtue!  Seal  of  truth!  The 
household's  richest  patrimony,  the  nation's  noblest 
safeguard!  The  pledge  of  peace,  the  fountain  of  in- 
telligence, the  strength  of  law!  The  oracle  of  in- 
struction! The  ark  of  mercy!  The  patent  of  our 
manhood's  spiritual  greatness— the  harbinger  of  our 
soul's  sanctified  perfection — the  glory  of  religion — 
the  watch4ower  of  immortality — the  ladder  set  up  on 
earth  whose  top  reacheth  to  heaven,  with  angels  of 
God  ascending  and  descending  upon  it." 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE  ADVANTAGES  AND  NECESSITY  OF  THE  SABBATH  IN 
RESPECT  TO  MORALS  AND  RELIGION. 

The  highest  commendation  of  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath or  Lord's  day,  is  its  inestimable  moral  and  re- 
ligious benefits.  The  religious  nature  of  man  is  the 
crown  of  his  being.  Our  Creator  designed  that  it 
should  preside  as  ruler  over  all  our  other  endow- 
ment. How  it  would  impoverish  us  all  to  be  de- 
prived of  our  religious  capacities.  Benefit  our  moral 
nature  and  you  send  a  refreshing,  fructifying  stream 
through  all  the  other  human  faculties  and  interests. 
It  is  a  fact  many  times  proven,  that  the  allowed  dese- 
cration of  the  Christian  Sabbath  is  followed  by  a  de- 
praving of  morals.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  equally 
proven,  that  the  sacred  observance  of  the  Sabbath  re- 
sults in  well=kept  laws,  and  purified  morality.  Who 
are  the  criminals  that  die  on  the  gallows?  With  few 
exceptions  they  are  Sabbath^breakers.  Who  fill  up 
our  jails,  prisons  and  penitentiaries?  Desecrators  of 
the  Sabbath.  Who  become  maniacs  through  vices 
of  any  kind,  and  afterwards  crowd  our  lunatic  asylums, 
or  go  so  often  into  the  suicide's  grave?  The  great 
proportion  are  Sabbath^breakers.  Go  through  all 
the  by-ways,  highways,  and  avenues  of  society, 
from  the  lowest  and  most  degraded  of  mankind,  to 
those  the  most  opulent  and  proud,  and  ask.  Who  are 
the  vicious?   who  are  contaminators  of  private  and 

301 


g02  ,  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

j)ublic  morals;  who  are  swearers,  thieves,  gamblers, 
robbers,  defaulters,  murderers;  who  are  sowing  the 
seeds  of  death,  and  scattering  the  fire-brands  of  hell? 
One  of  the  most  comprehensive  replies  to  these  ques- 
tions will  be.  Sabbath -breakers.  Sir  William  Black- 
stone  says  again,  "The  profanation  of  the  Sabbath  is 
an  offense  against  God  and  religion."  And  again  he 
says:  "A  corruption  of  morals  usually  follows  a 
profanation  of  the  Sabbath." 

"A  committee  in  the  British  House  of  Commons  in 
1832,  en  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  was  composed 
of  the  following  eminent  men :  Sir  Andrew  Agnew,  Mr. 
Burton,  Sir  Robert  Peel,  Lord  Morpeth,  Sir  Thomas 
Fowler  Baring.  One  gentleman  testified  before  them, 
that  he  had  been  employed  as  chaplain  of  prisons 
twenty-eight  years,  that  during  that  time  not  less  than 
seven  thousand  prisoners  had  annually  passed  under 
his  care,  and  that  during  the  twenty-eight  years  he 
had  had,  in  a  measure,  the  religious  instruction  of  one 
hundred  thousand  criminals.  He  said  he  made  it  a 
point  to  see  in  private  those  who  were  charged  with 
capital  offences,  and  that  he  did  not  recollect  a  single 
case  among  them  all,  where  the  party  had  not  been 
a  Sabbath^breaker,  and  in  many  cases  they  had  as- 
sured him,  that  Sabbath=breaking  was  the  first  stejj 
in  their  course  of  crime.  He  adds,  "I  may  say  in 
reference  to  prisoners  of  all  classes  that  nineteen  out 
of  twenty  of  them  have  neglected  the  Sabbath."  An 
investigation  on  this  point  was  once  made  in  the 
State  prison  of  Connecticut,  and  at  that  time  ninety 
out  of  one  hundred  of  its  inmates  had  been  habitual 
Sabbath=breakers.  A  similar  examination  with  a 
similar  result  was  had  in  Massachusetts  prisons.     Of 


THE  SABBATH  FOR  MORALS  AND  RELIGION      303 

the  one  thousand,  six  hundred  and  fifty-three  crimi- 
nals who  had  been  committed  to  the  New  York  State 
Auburn  Prison  previous  to  the  year  1840,  only  twen- 
ty^ nine  had  kept  the  Sabbath.  Such  has  been  the 
result  of  all  investigations  ever  made  on  the  subject,^ 
so  far  as  they  have  been  made  known. 

The  enemies  of  religion  understand  this  subject. 
They  know  that  to  make  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 
forgotten,  they  must  blo^  out  the  Sabbath  as  a  relig- 
ious day.  Bold  and  rank  infidelity  has  no  respect 
for  the  Sabbath.  The  infidels  of  France  fitted 
their  means  to  their  ends  as  well  as  they  could, 
when  they  changed  the  week  of  seven  days  to 
that  of  ten,  thus  hoping  to  rid  themselves  and 
the  French  nation  of  the  remembrance  of  the  Lord's 
day.  But  the  result  of  the  experiment  proved 
two  things;  that  man  needed  the  rest  of  the  Sab- 
bath; that  also  he  needed  its  religions  influence. 
For,  the  nine  days  of  labor,  with  the  tenth  for  a 
holiday,"  increased  the  exhaustion  of  man  and 
diminished  the  aggregate  amount  of  labor."  What 
else?  The  total  abrogation  of  the  Sabbath  by  Revo- 
lutionary France  was  followed  by  a  general  corrup- 
tion of  morals;  the  sense  of  moral  obligation  between 
man  and  man  was  greatly  extinguished;  the  marriage 
relation  was  widely  broken  up  and  men  and  women 
lived  together  almost  as  brutes.  Twenty  thousand 
divorces  were  registered  in  the  short  space  of  eight- 
een months.  Then  the  Frenchmen  fell  to  the  work 
of  chopping  off  human  heads.  The  faction  to- 
day in  power  filled  the  gutters  of  the  streets  of 
Paris  with  the  blood  of  their  enemies,  and  to-mor- 
row their  own    headless   bodies   were   carted  out  of 


304  ,  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

the  city  by  thousands.  Human  sympathy  and  af^ 
fection  were  well-nigh  gone.  Men  became  tigers,  the 
dupes  and  servants  of  hell.  All  these  fruits  were  in 
fact  the  manifest  indignation  and  desertion  of  God, 
because  of  the  impious  attempts  to  blot  out  the  Sab- 
bath from  the  memory  of  man. 

The  observance  of  the  Lord's  day  is  a  necessity  foi 
the  due  and  full  worship  of  God  by  the  human  race. 
Without  it  the  spirit  to  glorify  God  and  to  praise 
him  will  not  have  adequate  development  and  growth. 
Nor  will  man  cultivate  properly  his  religious  nature 
without  that  day.  Without  it  worldliness  will  over- 
whelm him,  and  leave  his  soul  barren,  and  hard,  and 
unfruitful  of  good.  Cruel  unbelief  will  come  in,  the 
heart  of  man  will  become  beaten  down  into  fallow- 
ground  desolation,  or  will  run  into  the  thickets  of 
vice  and  corruption. 

It  may  unqualifiedly  be  said,  that  spiritual  religion 
never  prospers  without  the  Sabbath.  Every  revival 
of  religion  results  in  the  more  faithful  observance  of 
the  Lord's  day,  or  creates  that  observance  where 
it  had  not  been  before.  Dr.  Chalmers  said,  "We 
never,  in  the  whole  course  of  our  recollections,  met 
with  a  Christian  friend,  who  bore  upon  his  character 
every  other  evidence  of  the  Spirit's  operations,  who 
did  not  remember  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy." 
And  the  pious  and  ardent  McCheyne  said,  "  Can 
you  name  one  godly  minister  of  any  denomination  in 
all  Scotland,  who  does  not  hold  the  duty  of  the  entire 
sanctification  of  the  Lord's  day?  Did  you  ever  meet 
with  a  lively  believer  in  any  country  under  heaven — 
one  who  loved  Christ,  and  lived  a  holy  life — who  did 
not  delight  in  keeping  holy  to  God  the  entire  Lord's 


THE  SABBATH  FOR  MORALS  AND  RELIGION      305 

day  ?  "  Even  if  there  be  exceptions  to  McCheyne's 
rule,  what  he  has  in  mind  shows  the  united  trend  of 
true  piety  and  the  sacred  observance  of  the  Sabbath. 
Lord  Karnes  said,  "  Sunday  is  a  day  of  account,  and 
a  candid  account  every  seventh  day  is  the  best  prex^a- 
ration  for  the  great  day  of  account:"  Lord  Bacon 
said,  ''The  first  creature  of  God  in  the  works  of  days 
was  the  light  of  sense,  and  the  last  was  the  light  of 
reason,  and  his  Sabbath  work  ever  since  is  the  illumi- 
nation of  the  Spirit."  Indeed,  who  are  emphatically 
illumined  by  the  Spirit  save  they  who  regard  the 
Sabbath.  They  who  keep  the  Sabbath  holy  are  un- 
der the  training  ef  the  Holy  Spirit;  at  least  during 
its  sacred  hours.  Blessed  Teacher!  able  to  make 
wise  unto  Salvation,  and  for  eternity. 

The  Lord's  day  thus  becomes  one  of  the  best  evi- 
dences of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  even  an  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  of  God.  It  is  the  Lord's  daij, 
that  now,  in  the  new  dispensation,  becomes  the  high- 
est evidence.  It  commemorates  Christ's  resurrection. 
Therefore  it  is  the  Lord's  day.  It  is  a  remembrance 
of  Christ's  completed  work.  It  points  ever  to  the 
capstone  of  the  perfected  evidences  of  Christ's  son- 
ship  with  God.  "  If  Christ  be  not  risen,  then  is  our 
preaching  vain,  and  your  faith  is  also  vain"  (1  Cor. 
XV.  14).  The  Lord's  day  is  also  a  remembrancer  of 
the  Divine  assurance  that  all  men  will  be  raised  from 
the  dead.  "  If  there  be  no  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
then  is  Christ  not  risen."  "And  if  Christ  be  not 
raised,  your  faith,  is  vain;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins." 
(1  Cor.  XV.  13,  17.  Christianity  has  an  immense  su- 
periority over  Judaism;  the  new  covenant  is  better 
than  the  old.  (Heb.  viii:6-8).  We  can  not  dispense 
19 


306  ^  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

with  the  Lord's  day.  We  can  not  go  back  to  the  an- 
cient types  and  symbols.  The  benefits  of  Chris- 
tianity can  not  be  without  Christ.  Christ  can  not 
be  to  us  the  Life  without  his  resurrection.  We  in 
part  deny  his  resurrection  if  we  deny  the  Lord's  day. 
If  we  deny  or  discard  even  a  paH  of  the  day,  we 
deny  or  discard,  or  profane  a  part  of  the  power  of  the 
religion  of  Christ.  Sir  Walter  Scott  said,  "Give  to 
the  world  one=half  of  Sunday,  and  you  will  find  that 
religion  has  no  strong  hold  of  the  other  " 

It  is  one  of  the  laws  perceived  in  nature,  and  demon- 
strated in  history,  that  the  highest  success  of  religion 
requires  frequent  entire  days  sacredly  devoted  to  her 
service,  and  not  merely  parts  of  days.  The  holiliess 
of  the  day  passes  out  if  worldliness  comes  in.  Pure 
spring  water  will  not  retain  its  clearness,  if  a  coloring 
liquid  be  intermingled  with  it.  God  has  appointed 
sacred  services  for  secular  days;  but  he  has  never 
made  half  of  the  same  day  sacred  and  the  other 
half  secular,  and  men  will  never  successfully  do  it. 
They  will  not  desire  to  do  it  when  they  are  illu- 
mined and  led  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  lands 
where  the  half  religious,  and  the  half  secular  sys- 
tem for  the  Lord's  day  has  been  adopted,  the  tn- 
telligent  and  devoted  Christians  look  with  longing 
to  the  countries  where  the  Christian  Sabbath  is  sa- 
credly kept  through  all  its  hours.  These  various 
truths  confirm  the  doctrine  that  the  holy  observance 
of  the  Lord's  day  is  of  perpetual  obligation  for  the 
well-being  of  man  in  his  entire  nature,  physical,  in- 
tellectual, moral  and  religious. 

We  come  in  this  discussion  to  a  trilemma,  a  choice 
between  three  alternatives.      One  choice  is,  that  the 


THE  SABBATH  FOR  MORALS  AND  RELIGION      30? 

world  have  no  weekly  Sabbath.  Both  reason  and 
scripture  cry  out  against  such  a  horrid  preference. 
Another  choice  is,  that  only  the  seventh  day  be  ob- 
served as  the  Sabbath.  Such  a  decision  would  put 
mankind  back  into  Judaism,  the  old  dispensation; 
whereas  we  know  that  the  new  covenant  is  better, 
and  by  Divine  purpose  takes  the  place  of  the  old, 
The  remaining  choice  is,  to  follow  the  teaching  of 
Scripture  and  providence,  and  accept  the  Lord's  day 
as  the  Christian  Sabbath,  oi perpehtal  obligation  and 
of  so  great  and  peculiar  advantages,  that  they  con- 
spire with  Scripture  evidence  to  pronounce  it  the 
day  of  Heaven.  This  view  comports  with  reason  as 
well  as  with  the  word  of  God.  Christianity  is  better 
than  Judaism,  though  not  contrary  to  it,  since  it  grew 
out  of  it.  The  Christian  Sabbath  has  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament its  basis  and  in  the  New  Testament  its  cap- 
stone. No  candid  and  thorough  examination  of 
Scripture  can  set  aside  all  Sabbaths,  even  though  the 
old  dispensation  has  closed;  nor  can  it  adhere  only 
to  the  Mosaic  Sabbath.  We  do  despite  to  the  revela- 
tion from  God  in  the  new  dispensation,  if  we  discard 
all  testimony  in  favor  of  the  Lord's  day  as  the  sacred 
weekly  rest  day  in  the  Divine  economy.  Since  we 
must  choose  for  our  Sabbath  between  the  seventh 
day  and  the  first,  the  great  mass  of  the  Christian 
world  would  do  violence  to  their  most  intelligent  and 
devout  convictions,  if  they  were  to  reject  the  Lord's 
day  and  choose  the  seventh.  Such  a  gross  anomaly 
mankind  will  never  witness.  And  if  Christians  uni- 
versally were  to  contemplate  abandoning  the  Lord's 
day  and  observing  no  Sabbath,  even  the  Godless,  in 
their  sober  reflections,  would  protest  against  such  a 


308  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

profanation  of  both  reason  and  Scripture.  They 
who  love  the  Christian  Sabbath  have  unbounded 
reasons  for  rejoicing,  and  thanksgiving  to  God,  be- 
cause their  holy  day  stands  on  so  firm  a  basis,  and  is 
so  replete  with  blessings  to  the  Church  of  God,  and 
to  mankind. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

HOW   TO   KEEP  THE  SABBATH. 

The  Scriptures  tell  us  that  by  steadfastly,  and  with 
open  face,  beholding  the  glory  of  the  Lord  we  may 
be  made  partakers  of  his  glory.  But  we  all,  with 
open  face  beholding  as  in  a  glass  the  glory  of  the 
Lord,  are  changed  into  the  same  image  from  glory  to 
glory,  even  as  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.  (2  Cor. 
iii.  18)  So  the  Sabbath  may  be  a  mission  to  us,  in 
which  we  may  behold  the  holiness  of  the  Lord  and 
thus  be  made  partakers  of  his  holiness.  The  Divine 
command  is,  to  "Remember  the  Sabbath-day,  to 
keep  it  holy."  By  endeavoring  to  keep  this  com- 
mand men  may  find  great  assistance  for  personal  ho- 
liness of  heart  and  life.  A  part  of  the  assistance  lies 
in  the  aid  to  a  real  conception  of  the  nature  of  holi- 
ness. The  Sabbath  demands  the  putting  away  of  all 
secular  things,  beyond  the  requisites  of  necessity  and 
mercy,  and  the  taking  of  the  spiritual  and  religious 
for  our  thoughts  and  our  ways  during  its  sacred  time. 
This  in  its  true  spirit  involves  a  most  salutary  train- 
ing for  holiness,  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the 
Lord. 

One  passage  of  Scripture  preeminently  sets  forth 
the  Divine  method  for  keeping  the  Sabbath-day  holy. 
It  is  this:  "  If  thou  turn  away  thy  foot  from  the  Sab- 
bath, from  doing  thy  pleasure  on  my  holy  day;  and 

309 


310  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

call  the  Sabbath  a  delight  and  the  holy  of  the  Lord, 
honorable;  and  shalt  honor  it,  not  doing  thine  own 
ways,  nor  finding  thine  own  pleasure,  nor  speaking 
thine  own  words:  Then  shalt  thou  delight  thyself 
in  the  Lord;  and  I  will  make  thee  to  ride  upon  the 
high  places  of  the  earth,  and  I  will  feed  thee  with 
the  heritage  of  Jacob,  thy  father:  for  the  mouth  of 
the  Lord  hath  spoken  it.     (Isa.  Iviii.  13,  14) 

The  foregoing  passage  is  kindred  to  the  Fourth 
Commandment.  The  latter  tells  us  to  keep  the  Sab- 
bath "  holy."  The  former  says  it  is  a  "  holy  day," 
and  therefore,  it  is  to  be  holily  kept.  The  very  holi- 
ness is  to  be  regarded  as  a  "  delight,"  and  not  as  a 
dread.  It  is  to  be  esteemed  "  the  holy  of  the  Lord, 
honorable."  God  in  his  holiness  is  to  be  honored 
upon  it,  Secular  "  ways,"  and  "  pleasure,"  and 
"  words,"  are  not  to  be  indulged.  With  such  holy 
observance  one  will  "delight"  himself  "in  the  Lord," 
and  will  be  transformed  into  likeness  to  Christ  the 
Lord. 

More  minutely:  In  the  foregoing  passage  from 
Isaiah,  the  Lord  sets  forth  the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath 
both  negatively  and  positively.  On  the  negative  side 
we  are  to  keep  the  Sabbath  by  refraining  from  cer- 
tain things,  and  on  the  positive  side  by  engaging  in 
certain  things.  The  things  to  be  refrained  from  are 
these:  "  Doing  thine  own  ways,"  "  Finding  thine  own 
pleasure,"  and  "speaking  thine  own  words."  The 
things  to  be  engaged  in  are  these:  "Turn  away  thy 
foot  from  the  Sabbath,"  "  Call  the  Sabbath  a  delight," 
and  the  holy  of  the  Lord,  honorable,"  "  Honor  him," 
"  Delight  thyself  in   theLord." 


HOW  TO  KEEP  THE  SABBATH  811 

On  the  negative  side: 

1.  "  Not  doing  thine  own  ways."  It  implies,  of 
course,  not  doing  any  sinful  "  ways,"  for  those  are 
wrong  on  all  days  The  reference  is  distinctly  to 
secular  "  ways,"  which  are  right  on  other  days  of  the 
week,  but  unnecessary  on  the  Sabbath,  and  un- 
friendly to  the  holy  keeping  of  that  day.  God  has 
given  us,  in  a  sense,  six  days  as  our  own.  In  them 
we  are  to  do  all  our  work,  and  engage  in  all  proper 
and  useful  ways.  But  the  Sabbath  is  the  Lord's  day, 
and  on  it  we  are  not  to  attend  to  our  business,  our 
week=day  employments,  or  any  of  our  "own  ways." 
Whatever  we  do  on  the  Sabbath  which  is  of  our  "own 
ways,"  in  that  we  violate  the  holy  time.  Upon  that 
day  we  are  to  do  wholly  according  to  God's  ways. 

2.  "  Nor  finding  thine  own  pleasure."  To  keep 
the  Sabbath  one  must  cease  finding  not  only  sinful 
pleasure,  but  also  all  wordly  pleasures  suitable  and 
proper  on  the  six  secular  days,  of  the  week.  "Thine 
OWN  pleasure."  That  is  what  the  Lord  has  given  us 
as  specifically  ours  in  the  week  time.  It  does  not 
embrace  God's  peculiar  pleasure  for  us  on  the  Sab- 
bath. 

3.  "  Nor  speaking  thine  own  words."  Words  that 
are  wicked  on  any  day  should,  of  course,  be  excluded 
on  the  Lord's  day.  But,  we  have  a  great  amount  of 
conversation  and  public  speaking  during  the  six  days 
which  should  not  be  admitted  to  the  Sabbath.  The 
inference  is  necessitated,  that  if  we  engage  in  secular 
or  worldly  conversation  on  the  Sabbath,  whether 
about  business  or  about  pleasure,  except  as  some 
necessity  or  mercy,  or  some  religious  end,  requires  it, 
we  violate  the  commandment  of  God.    There  may  be 


312  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

conversation  about  the  works  of  God  in  nature,  or 
about  people  and  society,  or  even  business,  which  has 
a  religious  bearing  or  design.  Such  conversation  is 
allowable  on  the  Sabbath.  But,  the  mere  gossipy, 
talk,  that  has  no  moral  or  religious  air,  or  vein  about 
it,  is  a  desecration  of  the  Christian  Sabbath.  Our 
conversation  on  the  Sabbath  should  be  appropriate 
to  ''  the  holy  of  the  Lord,"  which  the  Sabbath  is 
termed  in  the  text. 

We  turn  now  to  the  positive  side,  to  the  things 
which  should  be  engaged  in  on  the  Sabbath. 

1.  "  Turn  away  thy  foot  from  the  Sabbath." 
Turning  the  foot  to  or  upon  the  Sabbath,  would  be 
trampling  upon  it.  We  are  to  turn  our  foot  away 
from  that.  Hence  we  are  to  take  pains,  make  calcu- 
lations, and  preparations,  to  observe  the  Sabbath's 
sacred  hours,  hours  appointed  to  a  sacred  use.  We 
should  not  pack  great  worldliness  and  exhaustion 
upon  ourselves,  or  upon  others  on  Saturday,  so  as 
to  load  its  burden  ofP  partly  upon  the  Lord's  day,  or 
so  as  to  render  ourselves  unfit  to  spend  the  Sabbath 
holily,  or  other  than  as  sleeping  animals.  While  the 
Sabbath  is  in  part  for  both  physical  and  mental,  as 
well  as  spiritual,  rest,  we  yet  should  leave  our  rational 
natures  for  some  activity  upon  it.  Without  that  we 
can  not  obtain  and  enjoy  rest  in  God,  for  which  that 
holy  day  was  in  chief  part  designed.  We  should 
have  express  plans  to  keep  the  Sabbath  holy,  plans 
not  to  trample  on  its  designs,  nature,  or  claims. 

2.  "Call  the  Sabbath  a  delight."  Though  we  re- 
frain from  all  outivard  violations  of  the  Sabbath,  and 
though  that  refraining  be  useful,  yet  unless  our  souls 
take  actual  "delight"  in  the  Sabbath,  we  are  found 


HOW  TO  KEEP  THE  SABBATH  313 

wanting.  Without  that  the  heart  which  God  approves 
is  not  in  us.  It  is  far  better  for  others,  and  for  our- 
selves, not  to  violate  outwardly,  even  if  we  are  desti- 
tute of  the  right  heart;  but  the  real  and  full  blessing 
can  come  u^Don  us  only  when  we  "delight"  to  observe 
outwardly  and  inwardly,  and  in  our  hearts  really  call 
the  Sabbath  itself  a  "  delight." 

3.  "Call  the  Sabbath  and  the  holy  of  the 
Lord  honorable."  This  does  not  say  or  mean, 
"Call  the  Sabbath  the  holy  to  the  Lord,"  but  "the 
holy  of  the  Lord,"  "of  Jehovah,"  a  day  of  holiness 
given  of  God  for  men,  a  day  "honorable,"  of  especial 
honor  because  it  is  so  sacred  a  gift  from  God's  great 
bounties.  The  early  Christians  called  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  "the  day  of  heaven,"  "the  queen  of  days." 
To  a  true  saint  in  the  enjoyment  of  religion,  the 
Christian  Sabbath  will  always  be  a  "delight,"  and 
"honorable,"  the  choicest  of  all  the  week.  Its  hours 
will  not  drag  heavily  with  him.  Communing  with 
God,  or  being  in  a  state  accordant  with  such  com- 
munion, his  temptations  will  not  be  many,  or  strong, 
or  harassing,  to  break  over  the  restraints  of  the  day; 
he  will  not  find  his  thoughts  ever  roaming  for  worldly 
themes ;  his  heart  will  not  long  for  the  day  to  be  gone. 
He  will  rejoice  in  its  coming;  for  then  he  may  lay 
aside  the  secular  cares  and  engagements  of  the  week 
and  yield  his  soul  to  the  communions  and  enjoyments 
more  in  unison  with  his  si)irit;  and  then  his  religious 
thoughts,  meditations,  and  society,  may  be  uninter- 
ruptea  by  the  world.  Often  can  he  exclaim,  with  the 
primitive  saints,  "  Day  of  heaven !  "  "  Queen  of  days ! " 

4.  "Honor  him."  The  Sabbath  is  probably  here 
personified,  and  the  pronoun  "him"  refers  to  the  Sab- 


SU  .  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

bath,  and  not  to  Jehovah.  And  the  idea  is,  that  men 
should  honor  the  day  on  which  God  has  bestowed 
some  splendor  of  his  glory  by  sanctifying  it,  as  re- 
corded in  the  beginning  ( Gen.  ii.  3 ) .  Jehovah  honors 
the  day  by  appointing  it  to  holy  pur^DOses.  Can  we 
honor  it  by  devoting  it  to  secular  purposes?  God 
honored  it  by  making  it  a  day  of  "holy  convocation" 
(Lev.  xxiii.  2).  Can  we  honor  it  by  neglecting  the  con- 
vocation for  worship,  and  by  disobeying  the  command, 
t' Forsake  not  the  assembling  of  yourselves  together," 
(Heb.  X.  25)?  How  unlike  God  are  those  who  turn 
their  foot  to  the  Sabbath,  and  trample  upon  it.  What 
a  difference  between  those  who  aim  only  to  refrain 
from  positive  transgressions  of  the  Sabbath,  and 
those  who  rise  into  a  far  higher  atmosphere,  and  as 
by  intuition,  or  the  perpetual  bubblings  of  an  ever= 
flowing  fountain,  pour  forth  their  joy  and  praise,  and 
Sabbatic  honors,  unto  the  Lord! 

5.  "  Delight  thyself  in  the  Lord."  If  we  make  and 
treat  the  Sabbath  as  a  "  delight,"  by  that  we  shall  be 
so  trained  and  built  up  that  God  will  be  a  delight  to 
us,  and  not  a  being  of  fear  and  dread.  There  is  no 
cause  for  wonder  that  those  who  do  not  keep  the  Sab- 
bath holy  do  not  have  joy  and  comfort  in  the  Lord, 
do  not  like  solid  religious  reading  on  the  Sabbath,  do 
not  love  to  meet  in  the  sanctuary. 

We  find  that  in  the  text  we  have,  negative  and  pos- 
itive together,  eight  distinct  and  emphatic  principles 
for  our  guidance  in  keej^ing  the  Sabbath  day  holy. 
From  those  principles  we  may  deduce  many  lessons 
of  closer  application  to  ourselves.  A  few  we  do  well 
now  to  name  and  consider: 

1.     It  is  wrong  to  jDut  seven  days'  works  into  six,  if 


HOW  TO  KEEP  THE  SABBATH  816 

that  is  going  to  make  us  stupid  and  unfit  for  God's 
worship  and  the  sanctuary.  For  God  has  provided 
for  only  six  days'  work  in  the  seven,  and  he  has  pro- 
vided for  the  sanctuary  and  for  our  attendance  upon  it. 

2.  All  intellectual  labor  on  the  Sabbath  other  than 
what  is  moral  and  religious,  or  what  is  requisite  for 
spiritual  worship,  or  for  necessary  mercy,  is  Sabbath 
profanation.  Children  and  students  who  learn  their 
secular  lessons  of  the  week  on  the  Lord's  day,  do 
wrong,  and  their  parents  and  teachers  do  wrong  who 
allow  them  in  it.  Keeping  secular  book^accounts  on 
the  Sabbath  is  also  wrong  and  a  kind  of  partial 
suicide. 

3.  Publishing  a  secular  newspaper  on  the  Sabbath 
day  is  a  violation  of  the  day,  and  is  a  very  great  evil, 
because  it  tempts  thousands  to  desecrate  the  Sabbath 
by  secular,  and  often  corrupting,  reading.  Purchas- 
ing the  secular  newspaper  on  the  Sabbath  is  also 
wrong,  as  well  as  advertising  in  it,  and  running  a 
train,  or  being  a  newsboy  to  carry  it  and  sell  it,  is 
wrong.  Editors  and  publishers  are  bound  to  exempt 
one  day  in  seven  from  all  labor  for  the  secular  press. 
If  all  laborers  in  this  business,  or  any  other  business, 
can  not  always  keep  precisely  the  same  hours  free 
from  secularities,  and  devoted  to  sacred  purposes,  still 
all  laborers  should  keep  holy  one  day  in  seven. 

4.  Traveling  or  journeying  on  the  Sabbath,  except 
from  providential  necessity  or  mercy,  is  violation  of 
the  fourth  commandment.  Pleasure^riding  on  that 
day  is  particularly  embraced  by  one  of  the  condemna- 
tory principles  of  the  text;  for  it  \^  finding  one^s  own 
pleasure  on  the  Sabbath.  Riding  to  church;  in  case 
of  need  of  it,  on  that  day  is  allowable;   for  it  is  find- 


316  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

ing  God's  pleasure.  Riding  to  church,  as  some  prob- 
ably do,  for  mere  fashion  and  show,  is  wrong.  If  any 
think  it  hard  that  they  cannot  indulge  in  pleasure^ 
riding  on  the  Sabbath,  they  should  be  reminded  that 
their  hearts  are  not  in  unison  with  the  Lord,  else  the 
Sabbath  properly  kept  would  be  their  "delight."  If 
any  need  to  ride  for  health  on  the  Sabbath,  that  is  al- 
lowable if  they  cannot  get  health  enough  in  that  way 
in  the  week4ime=  Yet,  they  should  be  careful  about 
it,  lest  their  example  encourage  secular  pleasure=rid- 
ing.  To  take  all  of  one  s  medicine  on  the  Sabbath 
looks  to  men  a  little  like  sponging  from  the  Lord,  and 
to  the  Lord  no  doubt  it  looks  worse  still.  Walking 
for  mere  pleasure  on  the  Sabbath  amid  sights  and 
curiosities,  whether  of  people  or  smaller  things,  is 
likely  to  secularize  the  mind  and  unfit  it  for  God's 
holy  purposes  in  this  day.  Walking  for  exercise  on 
the  Sabbath,  or  getting  into  the  open  air  for  health's 
sake,  where  no  associations  or  tendencies  are  evil,  is 
allowable.  Yet,  we  need  to  keep  strict  watch,  lest  in. 
getting  a  little  good  to  ourselves  by  any  such  indulg- 
ence, we  do  much  harm  to  others  in  connection  with  it. 
5.  Secular  visiting  on  the  Sabbath  is  Sabbath 
trespassing.  A  little  religions  visiting  in  special 
cases  may  sometimes  be  well;  yet,  ordinarily  we 
should  leave  people  by  themselves,  and  without  much 
company,  on  the  Lord's  day,  except  as  they  are  in 
church.  These  restrictive  principles  will  create  bet- 
ter personal  character,  and  better  society  in  the  end. 
If  any  have  not  a  heart  for  all  this,  it  is  sad  that  they 
do  not  love  God's  ways  instead  of  their  own  ways;  for 
God's  ways  are  fitted  to  make  the  most  and  the  best 
of  them. 


now  TO  KEEP  THE  SABBATH  8lt 

(6)  Visiting  on  the  Sabbath  by  means  of  secular 
letter^ writing,  must  be  accounted  a  violation  of  the 
(lay.  If  persons  write  religiously  on  the  Sabbath, 
the  secular  matters  should  be  left  until  a  week=day. 
Writing  on  secular  matters  must  be  a  secular  act 
which  belongs  to  our  own  six  days,  and  not  to  the 
Lord's  holy  day  which  he  has  reserved  for  our  own 
religious  benefit.  But,  writing  itself  is  a  mechani- 
cal act,  and  composing  is  a  mere  intellectual  act, 
without  in  itself  being  religious  at  all,  and  it  were 
generally  better  to  defer  all  of  that,  doubtless,  even 
the  religious  letter=writing,  from  the  Sabbath  to  the 
vreek^time,  and  take  on  the  Lord's  day,  after  our  act- 
ive religious  work,  and  necessary  secular  duties,  such 
reading  and  communing  as  will  leave  us  more  in  the 
passive  rather  than  the  active  state.  At  least,  we 
should  not  write  of  secular  matters  on  the  Sabbath, 
unless  for  an  immediate  religious  purpose,  or  for 
some  real  necessity  or  mercy.  If  any  say  that  they 
must  write  even  their  secular  letters  on  the  Sabbath 
because  they  have  not  time  during  the  week,  they 
should  be  reminded  that  there  is  a  way  of  dishonor- 
ing God  and  doing  the  less  to  pay  for  it,  and  a  way 
of  honoring  him  and  doing  7nore,  and  being  the 
greater,  in  consequence.  They  who  think  they  can 
improve  upon  God's  ordering  of  aflpairs  will  be  poor 
at  last. 

(7)  Corporations  and  joint  stock  companies  vio- 
late the  Sabbath  if  thay  allow  their  property  to  be 
unnecessarily  employed  in  secular  business  on  the 
Lord's  day.  Railroad  managers  should  curtail  the 
running  of  trains  on  the  Sabbath  as  much  as  con- 
sistent with  necessity  and  mercy.     They  never  should 


318  '  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

run  them  for  Sabbath=breaking  excursions.  Owners 
of  railroad  stock  should  protest  against  the  use  of 
their  property  in  Sabbath  desecration  and  ever  pro- 
test. 

(8)  Imposing  unecessary  labor  on  employes  on 
the  Sabbath  is  desecration  of  the  day.  In  the  Fourth 
commandment  the  prohibition  of  labor  extends  to 
"thy  man-servant,  nor  thy  maid=servant "  (Ex.  xx: 
10).  As  given  in  Deuteronomy  we  read,  "That  thy 
man-servant  and  thy  maid= servant  may  rest  as  well  as 
thou"  (v:  14).  Employers  should  provide  as  much 
as  they  can  for  the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath,  and  the 
attendance  at  church,  by  those  they  employ.  It  is 
one  important  and  legitimate  way  of  doing  good. 

(9)  The  Sabbath  is  violated  by  undue  sleep- 
ing and  lolling  during  its  hours;  and  also  by  un- 
due indulgence  of  appetite  resulting  in  excessive 
dullness.  Overheating  over=strains  internal  organs, 
and  sometimes  makes  the  blood  settle  back  too  much 
into  the  brain,  or  produces  other  unhealthy  conges- 
tion. Many  persons  can  sleep  too  much  at  once. 
With  active  pursuits  during  the  week,  and  over^sleep 
on  the  Sabbath,  there  is  not  sufficient  exercise  to 
keep  the  circulation  good  on  the  surface,  and  so  the 
blood  settles  in  upon  internal  and  sensitive  organs, 
which  cannot  bear  the  load  without  danger  to  health, 
and  sometimes  to  life.  In  this  way  it  is  demonstrable 
that  people  are  better  off  to  get  up  in  proper  season, 
and  get  out  to  church,  than  to  lie  asleep  half  the  day, 
and  then  perhaps  go  a  Sabbath^breaking  in  the  after- 
noon and  evening.  Doubtless  we  have  a  right  to 
sleep  more  if  we  wish  on  Sundays  than  on  other 
days,  because  the  Sabbath  is  in  part  for  physical  re- 


HOW  TO  KEEP  THE  SABBATH  319 

cuperation  and  rest;  but  we  have  not  a  right  to  allow 
sleei)  and  stupor  to  tresj)ass  on  religious  service  and 
spirUual  rest,  for  which  the  Sabbath  was  preemi- 
nently designed. 

If  any  object  that  we  cannot  found  the  ooservance 
of  the  Lord's  day  on  the  Fourth  Conunandment  we 
reply:  First  by  disagreeing  with  that  statement; 
Secondly,  there  was  an  ante-Sinaitic  Sabbath,  a  pre- 
mosaic  Sabbath,  dating,  doubtless,  from  the  close  of 
Creation.  That  Sabbath  was  for  man.  Found  the 
Lord's  day  Sabbath  on  that. 

If  any  say  we  are  not  bound  to  keef)  the  Lord's  day 
holy,  we  disagree,  for  this  reason;  the  early  Chris- 
tians, as  Vv^e  have  seen,  deemed  the  Lord's  day  holy^ 
the  chief  of  all  days  and  they  sacredly  observed  it. 
Those  early  Christians  derived  their  belief  and  prac- 
tice directly  or  closely  from  the  Apostles  and  the 
Apostles  from  Christ  or  the  Holy  Spirit.  Therefore 
we  should  keep  holy  the  Lord's  day. 

Some  object  that  we  are  wrongly  bound  to  keep 
Jewish  Sabbatic  laws  and  customs.  Not  so.  We  are 
not  bound  to  keep  any  merely  Jewish  laws  or  cus- 
toms. Jewish  merely  civil  and  ceremonial  laws  are 
obsolete.  Strong  analogy  sometimes  holds  us  to  a 
Jewish  principle.  Circumstances  alter  cases.  The 
Jews  could  not  build  fires  on  their  Sabbath  but  they 
could  on  each  Sabbath  between  sun  and  sun.  Their 
holy  time  ending  at  sunset,  they  could  then  have  fire 
and  pre]3are  their  usually  chief  meal  of  the  day,  it 
being  during  the  same  daylight  with  their  Sabbath. 
But  with  the  same  law  in  force  we  could  not  have 
that  privilege;  our  Sabbath  commencing  and  closing 
with  midnight.     Their   gathering  sticks   on  the  Sab- 


320  SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY 

bath  was  like  our  hauling  cord  wood  from  the  forest 
to  the  home  door  on  that  day.  In  both  cases  it 
would  be  a  high  affront  to  heaven. 

We  should  take  notice  that  the  character  of  an  act 
depends  upon  the  motive  for  it,  or  the  end  in  view. 
Preparing  shew  bread  for  the  temple  on  the  Sabbath, 
and  placing  it  there  was  a  sacred  and  holy  act.  But 
except  for  its  object  it  would  have  been  secular  and 
sinful.  The  same  difference  with  the  double  sacri- 
fice on  the  Sabbath  is  to  be  noticed.  So  with  us; 
two  parties  may  be  riding  together  by  pr  ivate  or  pub- 
lic conveyance  on  the  Sabbath,  and  the  act  of  each 
will  be  sinful  or  holy  according  to  the  end  in  view, 
which  may  be  seeking  amusement  or  the  service  of 
God  in  divine  worship.  If  the  right  object  is  ever 
made  an  excuse  for  pursuing  the  wrong  that  also  is 
sinful. 

From  the  Scripture  law  of  the  Sabbath  the  forego- 
ing requisites  and  prohibitions  are  deduced.  They 
are  drawn  from  the  Sabbatic  moral  law;  not  from  civic 
and  ceremonial  provisions  or  enactments  made  speci- 
fically for  the  Jewish  nation  in  their  particular  cir- 
cumstances, and  not  made  binding  upon  all  men. 
But  these  lessons  derived  from  the  moral  law  are 
preeminently  fitted  to  promote  holiness.  They  re- 
quire holiness  of  heart  and  life  during  one  seventh 
part  of  time.  The  mere  outward  observance  is  not 
satisfactory  to  Jehovah.  Holiness  taught  one  sev- 
enth part  of  the  time,  is  in  itself  fitted  to  promote 
holiness  during  the  secular  j)art  of  the  week,  and 
during  the  whole  life.  The  Sabbath  is  God's  great 
training  school  and  university  for  holiness  and  for 
heaven.     The  holy  "  convocation  "  divinely  appointed 


now  TO  KEEP  THE  SABBATH  321 

for  the  Sabbath,  is  exactly  fitted  to  the  design  for  holi- 
ness, and  the  holiness  when  sufficiently  cultivated,  pre- 
pares the  soul  to  see  the  Lord  in  peace.  In  the  fourth 
of  Hebrews  we  are  taught,  that  the  S  abbatic  rest  on 
earth  is  a  symbol  of  the  holy  rest  which  remains  for 
all  the  servants  of  God  in  heaven.  This  fact  assumes 
that  the  earthly  Sabbath  is  designed  to  qualify  peni- 
tent and  obedient  minds  for  the  endless  condition  of 
heavenly  glory.  It  also  suggests  that  we  are  not  left 
in  the  new  dispensation  without  a  Sabbath,  for,  as 
preparatory  for  heaven  it  is  as  much  needful  now  as 
ever,  and  in  its  added  commemoration  of  Christ's 
resurrection,  its  service  for  the  heavenly  rest  is 
greatly  heightened. 


20 


322  APPENDIX. 

APPENDIX. 
I. 

Prof.  Geo.  T.  Ladd,  D.D.,  of  Yale  College  in  his  work, 
"The  Doctrine  of  Sacred  Scripture,"  in  writing  concerning 
the  Sabbath  speaks  of  "discrepancies"  in  the  * 'two  editions  ' 
respecting  that  day  (Ex.  20:8  11,  and  Deut.  5:12-15).  [Vol. 
I.,  pp.  loi,  102.]  He  also  speaks  of  "two  variant  and  some- 
what conflicting  forms"  in  the  two  copies  of  the  sacred 
Fourth  Commandment 

In  respect  to  these  statements,  "Discrepancy"  savors  of 
disagreement  or  contradiction,  we  ought  not  in  that  sense  to 
admit  of  discrepancy  in  the  two  accounts.  One  copy  may 
exceed  another  without  contradicting  it.  The  two  copies  of 
the  command  are  not,  as  we  think,  "somewhat  conflicting, 
forms." 

He  speaks  also  of  a  "number  of  slight  variations,  note- 
worthy differences  as  to  the  reason  for  the  Sabbath  law." 
In  Exodus,  the  Creation  is  given  as  one  reason  for  the  Sab- 
bath law;  in  Deuteronomy  two  reasons  are  added,  deliverance 
from  bondage  in  Egypt  and  the  obligation  to  give  rest  to 
laborers.  The  reasons  given  in  the  two  cases  are  not  con- 
flicting The  history  of  the  Israelites  gave  emphasis  to  the 
additional  reasons  for  the  existence  of  the  Sabbath  law. 


II. 


In  the  body  of  this  work  it  is  attempted  to  show  that  the 
day  of  Pentecost  occurred  upon  the  Lord's  Day.  Further 
discussion  of  that  point  may  be  found  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Sacra  of  April,  1880,  pp.  368-373. 


INDEX 


Index  of  names  of  persons  and  subjects  not  readily  found  by 
the  Table  of  Contents. 


Accadian,  29. 

Alexander,  286. 

Aldrich,  93. 

Alford,  42,  43,    44,    58,    108, 

124,  238. 
Andrews,  85,  128,  152. 
Andrewes,  172. 
Apfstolic  Fathers,  88. 
Apostolic  Authority,  118,263. 
Appleton,  171. 
Artists,  269. 
Arnold,  25,  33,  66,  140. 
Assos    103. 
Assyrian,  27,  29. 
Atterbury,  270,  298. 
Augustine,  44,  5i. 


Bacon,  33,  51,  66,  103,  140, 

305. 
Barnes,  128. 
Barrows,  47. 
Babylon,  27,  103. 
Baxter,  139. 
Bengel,  41,  58. 
Bionconi,  266. 
Blackstone,  288,  301,  302. 
Bryennios,  165. 
Bush,  223. 
Bushnell,  59. 
Burrow,  227,  229. 
Butler,  70,  71,  144. 
Buxtorf,  47. 


Calvin,  138. 
Carpenter,  265. 
Celestial  bodies,  15. 
Convocation,  57,  80. 
Conybeare,  103. 
Collections,  no. 
Constantine,  164,  219,  228. 
Contrast,  comparison,  238. 
Coleridge,  269. 
Commons,  302. 
Continental  Sabbath,  292. 
Cook.  135,  266. 
Chronology,  104,  106,  109. 
Changes,  142. 
Chalmers,  304. 
Corporations,  317. 
Crabbe,  238. 
Crystal  Palace,  267. 
Crucifixion,  93,  99. 


Dale,   ID,  25,  33,  36,  66,  79, 


140. 
De  Wette,  53. 
Dominicum,  172. 
Donaldson,  151. 
Dwight,  128. 


Early  Fathers,  263. 
Easter,  92,  120,  236. 
Ecclesiastical  Theory,  180. 
Edwards,  128,  138,  139,  171, 
262,  266,  275. 


324 


SABBATH  AND  SUNDAY, 


Ellicott,  124,  188. 
Emerson,  283. 
Evenings,  107,  108. 

F 

Fairbairn,  41. 

Family,  280,  282- 

Farre,  268. 

Farrar,  282. 

Feast,  42,  45,  49,  95,  105, 128, 

133- 
First  Day,  235. 
Fisher,  236. 

G 
Gilfillan,  171. 
Gladden,  34. 
Gurney,  257. 

H 

Hackett,  90. 

Hadley,  22,  38. 

Hamilton,  300. 

Hessey,  10,  115,  137,  149,  180, 

183,  202,  204,  205,  208,  257. 
Heylin,  16,  33,  64. 
Hodge,  128. 
Hooker,  216. 
Hooper,  278. 
Hopkins,  37,  39,  62,  183, 193, 

194,  203,  213. 
Home,  48. 
Humboldt,  270. 
Hyacinthe,  290. 

Inscriptions,  27. 

J 

Jahn,  48. 

Jerome,  115,  218,  226. 
Jewish  Superstitions,  263. 
Josephus,  46,  98, 
Justification,  62. 
Justin  on  Sunday,  153. 

K 

Kames,  305. 
Kendrick,  38. 
Koran,  24. 


Lange,  58,  108. 
La  Place,  24. 
Law,  70,  73. 
Lewis,  15. 
Licinius,  220. 
Lightfoot,  48,  151,  188. 
Littlejohn,  85,  104. 
Lord's  Day,  120,  i6i. 
Lord's  Supper,  120. 
Lord  Bacon,  305. 
Loyson,  29T. 
Luther,  253. 

M 

Manna,  17. 
Mason,  278, 
Memory,  31. 
Merrill,  30. 
Meyer,  53,  58,  188. 
Mill,  269. 
Mischna,  49, 
Mohammed,  23. 
Montalembert,  282. 
Moral  duties,  36,  70. 
Morality,  287. 
Morrow,  87. 
Murphy,  223. 
McKnight,  115 
McClintock,  171. 
Macauley,  271,  275. 
McCheyne,  304,  305. 

N 

Nations'  weekly  time,  21. 
Neander,  53,  116,  160,  228. 
Nisan,  93,  96. 
Niemeyer,  275. 

O 

Olshausen,  92. 
Ordinal,  140. 

P 

Paley,  10,  16,  64. 
Parker,  34. 
Parliament,  274. 
Passover,  95. 
Persian,  103. 


INDEX, 


325 


Peel,  302. 
Pentecost,  89. 
Pond,  128. 
Pusey,  226. 

Puritan,  8,  261,  263,  289. 
Phelps,  62,  171. 
Philo,  46,  47,  49,  230. 
Pliny,  152. 
Plato,  270. 
Philosophers,  281. 
Protestants,  178. 
Proudhon,  275. 

R 
Rabbins,  188,  234. 
Reed,  289. 
Reforms,  280. 
Rest,  264,  278,  291. 
Resurrection,  83,  loi. 
Religious  freedom,  220. 
Righteousness,  287,  288. 
Robertson,  35,50,139.192.254- 
Robinson,  98,  108. 
Roman  Catholic,  9,  178,  298. 
Rosetta  Stone,  127. 

S 
Sanderson,  66. 
Sayce,  28. 

Sabbath  perversions,  188. 
Septuagint,  54,  223. 
Selden,  46. 
SeyflFarth,  93. 
SchafF,  90,  92,  96. 
Shabbath,  53,  130. 
Supper,  42. 
Spellman,  229,  230. 


Socrates,  286. 

Scott,  306. 

Shaftesbury,  283. 

Stillingfleet,  218. 

Strong,  171. 

Smith,  90,  91,  289. 

Smyth,    146,    184,    195,    205, 

210,  216. 
Stanley,  53. 
Stuart.  26.  80.  128. 


Tacitus,  87. 
Talbot,  27. 
Talmud,  125. 
Taylor,  64,  66,  274. 
Time  differences,  78. 
Theodosius,  228. 
Trench,  42. 
Troas,  102,  109. 


Upham,  48. 


U 


W 


Washburn,  30. 

Watch,  107. 

Wayland,  294. 

Westminster,  138. 

Wetstein,  48. 

Wilberforce,  274. 

Wieseler,  92. 

Wilkinson,  171. 

Whitsuntide,  92. 

Winer,  37,  156. 

Wilson,  70. 

Whately,  58,  66,  67,  72,  144. 


SPECIAL  SCRIPTURE  TEXTS 


Lev.  23:  54,  57. 
Lev.  16,21:  130. 
Nehemiah  8,9?  43,  132. 
Isaiah  58,13,14:  310. 
Mark  2,27:  36,  38,  263. 
Acts  20,7:  50,  87. 
Rom.  3,31:  50. 
Rom.  6,14:  58. 
Rom.  7,6:  51. 


Rom.  13,8:  60. 

Rom.  14,5:  50. 

I  Cor.  16,2:  no. 

Gal.  4,10:  50. 

Col.  2,t6:  50,  55,  141,  127, 

Heb.  4,4:  156. 

Heb.  10,25:  50. 

Rev.  i,io:  120. 


1B029YC  Bl: 

LK 

05-29-03  32180      MS 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


1    1012  01274  4167 


